Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
346 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 344 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 14 of 403 (850312)
04-06-2019 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM


quote:

You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh

In reality that is an open question. Whether macroevolution involves anything more than iterated microevolution is not decided.

quote:

Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations.

By the usual definitions it also includes mutations - and in fact you yourself have explicitly done so by claiming that antibiotic resistance is an example of microevolution. Since antibiotic resistance can appear in a clonal population - without any genetic variation - it must arrive by mutation in those instances. (It is, of course rather easy to get a clonal population of organisms that rapidly reproduce by binary fission)

quote:

The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color.

Given the timescales involved it seems quite plausible that large numbers of smaller changes could do the same thing.

quote:

You cannot get variation beyond the genome.

Then how do we get antibiotic resistance appearing in a clonal population ?

quote:

Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation.

No, we don’t because of mutation. And that is why it hasn’t happened.

quote:

I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.

If producing antibiotic resistance in a clonal population is macroevolution - and you are saying that it is (even if everyone else disagrees) - you have been proven wrong by a simple experiment that has been tried many times over.

quote:

Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.

When you can come up with a genuinely better explanation - one that fits the evidence better, not one you happen to like - then you can say that honestly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 16 of 403 (850315)
04-06-2019 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
04-06-2019 2:05 AM


Let us see if we can actually have a reasonable conversation.

quote:

None of you will ever see what is really going on because you are glued into your ToE expectations.

This seems to mean that we disagree with your opinions because we choose to follow the actual evidence.

So, why are your opinions to be preferred to the evidence ?

eg

quote:

What you are talking about is my description of how you get to "speciation" and YOU call that macroevolution. That's a ridiculous claim since the genetic condition of the "new species" is depleted to the point that further evolution is impossible, and that depleted condition is in most cases most likely the reason why breeding with the parent population is no longer possible.

There are known examples of speciation but none of this “genetic depletion”. The Creationist “kind” concept, which you appear to endorse, accepts speciation. But ven your favourite example, the cheetah has variation as proven by the existence of the king cheetah. Therefore this is obviously your opinion and in conflict with the evidence.

And to add to this

quote:

They are impossible because you have no grasp of the processes involved to bring it about, none.

Why should we believe that your understanding of the processes involved is better than ours. Especially given that we have had to correct your errors in the past discussion of this issue ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 2:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 26 of 403 (850338)
04-06-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
04-06-2019 3:22 PM


Re: comic relief
quote:

If the changes are teeny and weeny which I suppose they would be, getting any one of them in the right place for the new genme would take millions or billions of years of mutations and there is no reason whatever to think any of it would come together in a coherent new creature.

Of course you are wrong because you don’t have the slightest understanding of the processes involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 3:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 3:35 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 403 (850350)
04-06-2019 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
04-06-2019 3:35 PM


Re: comic relief
quote:

Gosh you're all so good at tit for tat. Not much else I fear.

You’re only good at empty bluster. Because the reality is that you don’t understand the processes.

See Message 27 for examples.

For instance:


an accident of replication that changes something in the genome into something that has nothing whatever to do with the creature that genome constructs

Or would you like to explain how that actually makes sense ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 3:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 52 of 403 (850385)
04-07-2019 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-06-2019 5:58 PM


quote:

Another version would be a different eye color from the eye color gene or genes, a different texture of fur from the fur texture gene or genes. Something completely new would be scales instead of fur perhaps, or a completely different kind of eye.

The begged question here is whether small changes can add up to something “completely new”). We have known since Darwin’s time that a human-like eye can be built from relatively small changes - many stages exist in modern life. While the evidence for the evolution of feathers is limited by the fact that the fossil record does not usually preserve them we do have evidence of simpler structures

Eg


The coelurosaur lineages most distant from birds had feathers that were relatively short and composed of simple, possibly branching filaments.[17] Simple filaments are also seen in therizinosaurs, which also possessed large, stiffened "quill"-like feathers.

Wikipedia

So, are big changes really as necessary as you assume ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 5:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 56 of 403 (850410)
04-07-2019 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
04-07-2019 11:43 AM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours -- you know, it's called "paradigm conflict -- definitions have to change because meanings change

Your paradigm might use different definitions but that is not a reason for anyone else to use them. You’d do far better to invent your own terminology to avoid confusion. And it certainly isn’t a justification for your nasty accusations.

quote:

What you call macroevolution is simply not macroevolution because all that is happening is normal variation within a genome

You mean that it’s not what you call macroevolution. But that means you’re the one playing semantic games. And, in fact, the genetic level is not even the most important one.

quote:

It's still within the genome, the fact that interbreeding is no longer possible with the parent population is just a genetic or behavioral event that occurs within the genome

That depends on why interbreeding stops. And in the case if the crows being discussed elsewhere, it doesn’t even seem to be primarily genetic - the environment is probably more important.

quote:

I keep emphasizing this because you can't get something new, a new creature, without something drastically changing in the genome, not just the usual variation of traits of the creature but something entirely new. You don't get a human being from a chimpanzee genome, the chimpanzee genome or that of whatever ape creature you prefer, has to be significantly changed, and absolutely nothing I've ever seen described amounts to such a change, all the descriptions are of the built in variation potentials of a particular genome,

Are the genetic differences between chimpanzee and human really that drastic ? Do you have any direct knowledge that supports that? The physical differences certainly aren’t that drastic - the basic skeletal structure is the same, the same organs are present in each.

quote:

Again, what you call macroevolution is a self deception preserved by your insistence on the establishment definition, but in reality it's meaningless and deceitful.

What makes it deceitful ? You are the one confusing the issue so it would seem that the charge is better directed against you,

quote:

Macroevolution has to refer to a new creature outside the variations of a particular genome or it means absolutely nothing and just makes a mockery of the whole ToE claim that species evolve from other species.

Maybe you should try thinking about what you say. How can defining macroevolution as speciation make a mockery of the claim that speciation occurs ? Especially when it comes to giving examples.

quote:

OK, give the evidence.

How about the development of antibiotic resistance in a clonal population of bacteria ?

quote:

But all the evidence you've already given shows no such thing. Mutation can only change what the genetic stuff of the genome already codes for anyway -- it can only come up with a new version of the same trait because that's what the underlying DNA requires

And there we have another example of your failure to understand the processes. Genes code for proteins. That’s it. How you get from the gene to a trait is a whole lot more complicated and the idea that a gene has something it’s “for” better be tightly tied to the protein - and not to phenotypic traits that might be somehow affected.

quote:

You can get a grey crow, but you can't get a small yellow warbler or a buzzard. And all selection does is eliminate some alleles in favor of others, isolating the grey crow from the black crow for instance.

This is still assumption on your part. You still haven’t produced anything close to justifying it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 11:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 12:45 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 58 of 403 (850413)
04-07-2019 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
04-07-2019 12:45 PM


Re: still more comic relief
There you go again attributing your faults to others.

Now are you going to answer my points or are you just going to go on using the tactics you falsely ascribe to the “Left” ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 63 of 403 (850433)
04-08-2019 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
04-07-2019 7:08 PM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind.

Using the same words with different meanings isn’t what RAZD meant. He meant using different words.

quote:

I use "microevolution" only to demonstrate to evos what I'm talking about when I say it's all variation within a species genome.

And if you thought about it you would realise that was a bad idea since it excludes mutation. Which means that any case where mutation is involved should be considered macroevolution.

quote:

I don't use the term "speciation" either except for the same purpose, to say how the actual event described by the ToE by that term is not really speciation, it's nothing but one variation within a species genome that happened to lose its ability to interbreed with the parent population, due to factors I think may explain it, just an ordinary event that is certainly not macroevolution.

Which is just your opinion - you’ve never offered any real support for it or answered the objections.

quote:

Oh I'm bored to death with this, I'm going to have to come back to it.

Take the time to actually think about the issues for once,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:13 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 66 of 403 (850437)
04-08-2019 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
04-08-2019 12:13 AM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

I was talking about using different words too

First, that isn’t relevant to your supposed contradiction:


I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions.

Second your whole justification for your false attacks is that we have to use your definitions of “macroevolution” etc. - just because your views are opposed to mainstream thought. Which is obviously silly if you bothered to think about it.

quote:

No point in any further discussion here.

Obviously making up more excuses to try to justify your bad behaviour is going to go badly for you. I just wish you had the honesty to apologise. But then that’s too much to expect from a Creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:32 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 403 (850462)
04-08-2019 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
04-08-2019 3:32 PM


Re: still more comic relief
quote:

You don't have to use any particular term, you just have to be clear what you are talking about. The main point I keep making is that the examples people keep putting up as illustrations of the ToE are really just examples of standard variation within a Kind, determined by its genome which is nicely programmed for all the variations we see in separate species.

You mean that you say that they are. Whatever the evidence.

But that is hardly justification for your accusations, or for your hypocrisy.

quote:

The genome is a self-limiting closed system that provides the genetic stuff for a huge number of variations without any violation of the genome itself. Mutations do nothing but change the existing sequences within specific genes, they do not change the genome itself.

Oh dear, we are back to you letting your imagination run away with you. Genes can be lost or gained, chromosomes can split or fuse, and the proteins produced by genes can find new uses. And in what sense does the genome “not change” when genes change or the number of genes changes ?

quote:

It is genetically impossible to get from there to the kind of changes that would be required if species-to-species evolution were possible.

You say that but you offer no real support for it. Because you only pretend to understand the processes.

quote:

And so far nobody has offered a single example of how that could come about, it's all nothing but variation within the Kind or individual species.

Again that is what you assume, despite the evidence. And we have evidence of greater evolution. Evolution is the best explanation for the taxonomic tree of life, for the geographic distribution of species and for the order of the fossil record. And that was true in Darwin’s day and remains true now. The genetic evidence of relationships only adds to it. Imaginary objections can hardly stand against that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 71 of 403 (850466)
04-08-2019 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
04-08-2019 3:54 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

Of course but this is not speciation, just standard variation. the parent population can be equally split or there can be any number of smaller parts of it that can split off and whatever new gene frequencies exist in each will " (micro) evolve independently of each other. "

Even if it were just your assumed “standard variation” saying that speciation isn’t speciation is an obviously self-contradiction. Perhaps you should try thinking more before making such obvious errors.

quote:

I've also used ring species as examples many time to show the large range of differences that can develop through mere separation and isolation of small numbers off the parent population. Such divergences are built into the genome of the species.

But you haven’t produced any evidence that they are examples of that. I’ll be generous and assume that you simply didn’t realise the necessity of showing that your “examples” really are examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 4:47 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 73 of 403 (850473)
04-08-2019 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
04-08-2019 4:47 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

It isn't speciation. Speciation is a made-up concept to keep believers in the ToE convinced of the fantasy. It's nothing but variation on a given genome.

Even creationists believe In speciation these days. Even you did until you found out it was macroevolution - and you have the bizarre idea that it is the word that is significant, not it’s meaning,

Indeed, in another thread we have an example of speciation in progress. Speciation is a fact. Ignorantly spouting nonsense won’t change that.

quote:

It's all a semantic game. Common sense should be enough to make the point.

Because common sense says we have to believe arrogant nonsense ? Hardly. And that is all you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 4:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:29 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 77 of 403 (850484)
04-09-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
04-08-2019 11:29 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

No that is not what happened. I indulged the term for the sake of communication, or really, because of the usual misguided pressure to use establishment terms, until it was clear that it confused things instead. I always knew that what is called speciation is just an evo conceit

Needless to say there was no hint of that until afterwards. Indeed, your first reaction was not to explain that you didn’t really mean “speciation” but to indulge in your usual habit of making false accusations.

And let us note that you still have not given any reason to think that speciation is not speciation.

quote:

As for what other creationists believe, it's always very disappointing to find out how much they accept of what they shouldn't accept. Right now dredge accepts an enormous list of evo tenets. Confusing and sad when creationists do that, and unfortunately all of us have different views on these things. Very frustrating.

Creationists have good reason to accept speciation - especially the Young Earthers who need it because Noah’s Ark is too small to hold all the animals they need to put on there. Even you still hold to their idea oif Kinds instead of insisting that all species are separate Kinds as you must do to reject speciation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:27 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 86 of 403 (850560)
04-10-2019 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:24 PM


Re: combined response
quote:

New features that occur within the genome of the creature are just variations on what is already there, not truly new.

By which you mean that the phenotypic changes are typically small. But small phenotypic changes add up to larger changes. As I have explained.

quote:

Not new in any sense that could justify the claims of the ToE with its species-to-species assumption

But species to species transitions do not generally involve anything “new” in your sense. Can you think of even one example of a proposed species-species transition which does ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 88 of 403 (850563)
04-10-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:27 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
quote:

Sorry I think you just got it wrong.

Given that you still seem to be using the Creationist kind concept which assumes speciation it seems that I’m not wrong at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:34 PM PaulK 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 © 2021