Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 6:31 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 181 of 400 (850814)
04-14-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
04-14-2019 4:36 PM


So why include behaviour and not organs ? It makes no sense.

I think a better question is why ignore the genomes? Examining and comparing the genomes tells us far more about how closely species (the real definition, not Faith's bastardization) are related and in what ways.

Faith entered into this discussion talking on and on about genomes, but now she rejects even considering the genomes. Faith appears to be subject to the "Stan Lee Effect"; Stan Lee interview in The Never Ending Battle, a history of comic books, quoted from memory:

quote:
I'm perhaps the least scientific person you could ever meet. I wouldn't know a gamma ray if it came up to me. But when I was looked for an explanation and I heard, "gamma ray", I thought, "Gee, that sounds good." and so I used it.

Just now, I found a clip from another related interview which says basically the same thing: STAN LEE - 'SCIENCE' IN THE COMIC BOOK WORLD . I think I captured the meaning.

So we see Faith doing the same thing. She wants to sound sciencey so she latches onto some terminology that she thinks sounds sciencey and she uses it. And since she has no understanding of those sciencey words, she ends up misapplying them in the most grotesque manner possible.

In that,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2019 4:36 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 5:04 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2019 5:14 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 182 of 400 (850815)
04-14-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by dwise1
04-14-2019 5:00 PM


I brought up genomes many times. Where have you been?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 5:00 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 7:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 183 of 400 (850816)
04-14-2019 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
04-14-2019 4:57 PM


quote:

I already counted dogs' tailwagging among other things. You really do need to pay attention

You listed it as one of the fundamental characteristics identifying dogs. But you gave no indication that you consider it “superficial”.

But this is just part of the extreme lack of clarity in your argument. Which isn’t much of an argument at all. If you have a proper argument then make it instead of attacking everyone who fails to be convinced by something you have yet to properly present - and doesn’t look to have any real merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 4:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 184 of 400 (850817)
04-14-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by dwise1
04-14-2019 5:00 PM


To be fair we don’t have trilobite genomes.

To make her argument Faith needs clear, justifiable and consistent criteria and to show the application of them to tetrapods and to trilobites.

Her criteria are not clear, seem to be made up as she goes along and don’t seem to be applied consistently at all. And we have no real examples of actual application - nothing that gets into the anatomical details. But apparently she’d rather attack anyone that doesn’t agree with her argument rather than make a real case. As usual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 5:00 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 7:16 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(1)
Message 185 of 400 (850822)
04-14-2019 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
04-14-2019 5:04 PM


I brought up genomes many times. Where have you been?

I have been right here. Where have you been? Or should I ask in which universe?

Yes, you certainly did bring up genomes many times. Until my reply, Message 135, at which point you rejected what the genomes tell us about the relatedness of different species (the real definition of species, not your own bastardization) and dropped genomes altogether in favor of your tunnel-vision focus on general body shape.

And make no mistake about it (though you will try to), we are both talking about relatedness. By grouping species into a single "kind", you are implicitly stating that they are related. Furthermore, you are buying into standard YEC claims that the Ark could accommodate all animals because all they had to bring about was a breeding couple of a particular "basic created kind", who then after the Flood rapidly reproduced and even more rapidly evolved into all the species, genera, and higher taxa (details of which depends on which "basic created kind" we examine). Therefore, according to YEC teachings, all species within any given "basic created kind" must be related to each other by virtue of their all being descended from a common ancestor.

So you used to all gung-ho about genomes, but as soon as you realized what that meant you dropped genomes like a hot potato and started embracing mere morphology, which BTW completely fails to support your pipe-dream of "basic created kinds."

So then, what universe have you been in all this time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 5:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(1)
Message 186 of 400 (850823)
04-14-2019 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
04-14-2019 5:14 PM


To make her argument Faith needs clear, justifiable and consistent criteria and to show the application of them to tetrapods and to trilobites.

Her criteria are not clear, seem to be made up as she goes along and don’t seem to be applied consistently at all. And we have no real examples of actual application - nothing that gets into the anatomical details.

Clearly, she has no idea what she's doing. A hint of a vague idea bubbled up to her neo-cortex, which she grabbed and started running with without ever thinking any of it through. So she's just making up stupid stuff on the fly.

Your reference to anatomical details is important and exposes the weakness of Faith's latest ramblings even more. It's not the shape of the animals that group them together as the same "kind", but rather it's the anatomical details. If we went purely by shape, then we would have to group whales with fish, penguins with seals, and many marsupial species with placental ones (eg, sugar gliders and flying squirrels). A common environment and survival lifestyle will lead to very similar, if not identical, body shapes and behaviors. Rather, it's through the anatomical details that we are able to group species together properly.

Of course, you already know that, but Faith doesn't so that was for her benefit. Of course, she will never read it because she's devoted to the practice of willful stupidity.

Edited by dwise1, : Corrected "the the" to "not the" in " It's the the shape of the animals that group"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2019 5:14 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 2:13 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 2:28 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(3)
Message 187 of 400 (850832)
04-15-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
04-14-2019 11:51 AM


Re: Comparisons by Faith, the fun still continues
LOL

You aren't getting it and obviously don't care, and neither do I any more.

You're problem is that I do get it. I get how wrong you are in spite of being told so many many times, and that you will continue to be wrong because you think you are right because god.

You never cared about what evolution actually says nor how it actually works, and that's what makes your posts so funny.

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 150 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 11:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 188 of 400 (850841)
04-15-2019 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by dwise1
04-14-2019 7:16 PM


Yeah this is a fairly new angle for me on this subject. I'm still big on the argument that you have to run out of genetic variability with strong selection that produces dramatic new gene frequencies in a reproductively isolated population, but just from the point of view of how a given creature is put together and how it behaves there is certainly enough reason to consider this a likely definition of a Kind, and recognizing that the basic structure doesn't change (HOX genes) while many other changes occur from generation to generation and all the more so under selection pressure and the formation of reproductively isolated populations, similarly points to a built in limit to evolution. Once you've got fixed loci for the main characteristics you just don't have enough variability for the population to keep on changing. You can talk about it from the point of view of the genome or from the point of view of the phenotype. The evo bias is hard to overcome of course.

You know, the evo bias that says microevolution just continues and continues until you have a completely new species. Now that IS hilarious.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 7:16 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2019 2:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2019 2:58 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 189 of 400 (850842)
04-15-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by dwise1
04-14-2019 7:16 PM


would have to group whales with fish, penguins with seals, and many marsupial species with placental ones (eg, sugar gliders and flying squirrels). A common environment and survival lifestyle will lead to very similar, if not identical, bodies...

The bodies I have in mind are identical, not merely similar, except that they may vary in proportions: size and length and that sort of thing. But all dogs have a rigid skeleton with the same kind of feet, all of them, and dogs all bark and wag their tails etc etc etc. Cats have somewhat similar skeletons but they are very flexible. If you pick one up it will drape floppily over your arm unless you support it whereas a dog doesn't bend. Cats also have retractable claws that are not at all like a dog's toenails, and they meow. Etc etc etc. Your comparisons are ludicrous, the similarities are really broad and there is no way you are going to get a seal from a penguin. Sheesh.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 7:16 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by caffeine, posted 04-15-2019 2:58 PM Faith has responded
 Message 212 by JonF, posted 04-16-2019 8:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 190 of 400 (850844)
04-15-2019 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
04-15-2019 2:13 PM


The evo bias is hard to overcome of course.

You mean the facts are hard to overcome, of course.

Now that IS hilarious.

I never realized you had a sense of humor..


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 2:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 191 of 400 (850845)
04-15-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
04-14-2019 1:54 PM


Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
I'm sorry, I do get impatient. So far you haven't but others accuse me of stuff that is false and everybody seems to have to find some nitpicky way what i'm saying is wrong whereas if you just read what I wrote and thought about it I don't think it would look that way to you. Cats' bodies are flexibility, dogs' are not.

I understand your frustration; you have to put up with a lot of petty sniping on these boards. But a lot of that sniping stems from others being equally frustrated. You feel that others are not really reading what you wrote and trying to understand; I can assure you they feel the same about you.

I am reading what you're saying; I'm not ignoring it - it just doesn't make sense. You think trilobites are all one kind; while cats and dogs are different kinds; but you're not applying consistent criteria to the two.

All trilobites are three-lobed. The shape and size of these lobes varies enormously. All cats and dogs share about 300 bones. The shape and size of these bones varies much, much, much less than the shape and size of the lobes of different trilobite classes. And the fact that we're talking aboutn 300 specific bones rather than just a general overarching structure like in trilobites bespeaks a much closer relationship.

Cats are more flexible than dogs. Some trilobites were completely rigid while others could roll up into balls - the range of flexibility here is much greater for trilobites.

I'm not disputing that cats are different than dogs - of course they are; that's why we have different names. I'm disputing that these differences are somehow greater than the differences between trilobites.

--------------------------------------------------

To avoid a double post, I'll add here a response to your later post:

I'm still big on the argument that you have to run out of genetic variability with strong selection that produces dramatic new gene frequencies in a reproductively isolated population, but just from the point of view of how a given creature is put together and how it behaves there is certainly enough reason to consider this a likely definition of a Kind, and recognizing that the basic structure doesn't change (HOX genes) while many other changes occur from generation to generation and all the more so under selection pressure and the formation of reproductively isolated populations, similarly points to a built in limit to evolution.

HOX genes are shared by all bilaterian animals; not just closely related ones. What they do, to simplify dramatically, is to ensure that genes express differently at different points along the body axis - they are what makes the same genes produce an arm at your shoulder but a leg at your knee; for example.

I was thinking about these in trying to think how to respond to an earlier post of yours (can't find it now), because it seemed to show a fundamental misunderstanding you had of how genes work. You were talking about an animal evolving by removing the genes for an arm and replacing them with the genes for a flipper - but that's not how it works. Genes don't code for body parts; and the same genes are working in making an insect's antenna, its jaws and its legs. What changes is that regulatory genes change the pattern of expression of these genes in different parts of the body.

Genes do not code for specific traits, as you've mentioned a few times. They just make proteins. Changing the rate at which different genes do so at different parts of the body changes the whole complicated cascade of chemical reactions which make an organism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 1:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 3:07 PM caffeine has responded
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 3:53 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 192 of 400 (850847)
04-15-2019 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
04-15-2019 2:28 PM


The bodies I have in mind are identical, not merely similar, except that they may vary in proportions: size and length and that sort of thing. But all dogs have a rigid skeleton with the same kind of feet, all of them, and dogs all bark and wag their tails etc etc etc. Cats have somewhat similar skeletons but they are very flexible. If you pick one up it will drape floppily over your arm unless you support it whereas a dog doesn't bend. Cats also have retractable claws that are not at all like a dog's toenails, and they meow. Etc etc etc. Your comparisons are ludicrous, the similarities are really broad and there is no way you are going to get a seal from a penguin. Sheesh.

Not all dogs bark. Nor do all cats have retractile claws (using 'cat' in the wider sense since I've understood you're including all felids in the 'cat kind'). Cheetahs' claws are non-retractile.

Aside from the retractability of lack of it, though, I don't see how cat's claws are 'not at all like' dog's claws. They look pretty much the same to me, and the similarity is not just apparent - they're structurally the same. It's a hard keratin sheath surrounding a a mass of connective tissue innervated with blood vessels and nerves; in basically the same shape.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 2:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 3:16 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 193 of 400 (850848)
04-15-2019 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
04-15-2019 2:13 PM


quote:

Yeah this is a fairly new angle for me on this subject.

I think you’ve been wrong about trilobites for quite a while.

quote:

I'm still big on the argument that you have to run out of genetic variability with strong selection that produces dramatic new gene frequencies in a reproductively isolated population,

Oh look, you are misrepresenting your own argument to try to make it look reasonable. I guess that if you had really strong selection on every variable locus that might even happen. But if that ever happens it’s rare and it certainly doesn’t go on all the time for every species - you would have to be insane to believe that. So your real argument is still dead in the water.

quote:

...and recognizing that the basic structure doesn't change (HOX genes) while many other changes occur from generation to generation and all the more so under selection pressure and the formation of reproductively isolated populations, similarly points to a built in limit to evolution.

That’s rarely changes, not never changes. And there is plenty of evolution within that limit that you don’t accept.

quote:

Once you've got fixed loci for the main characteristics you just don't have enough variability for the population to keep on changing.

Even if that ever happened (and you haven’t shown that it has) new variations could come along. Or maybe environmental changes make other genes important.

quote:

You can talk about it from the point of view of the genome or from the point of view of the phenotype. The evo bias is hard to overcome of course.

Oh look we’re so biased that repeating debunked arguments again and again - accompanied by personal attacks - doesn’t work. That doesn’t exactly sound like bias to me.

quote:

You know, the evo bias that says microevolution just continues and continues until you have a completely new species. Now that IS hilarious.

Except that it is consistent with the actual evidence which is more than your arguments usually manage.

For real humour your posts are the best. There’s plenty of raving lunacy. Even in this thread we have your craziness over Kinds and speciation - how can you possibly endorse a concept that relies on speciation occurring and try to deny speciation. Oh you call it a semantic game but that only seems to mean telling a truth you don’t like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 2:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 3:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 194 of 400 (850849)
04-15-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by caffeine
04-15-2019 2:50 PM


Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
I'm happy to hear about regulatory genes that determine what the HOX genes do in a given creature. That makes sense.

Yes genes make proteins but particular alleles make particular proteins that form particular traits. Are you going to argue with that? If HOX genes make an arm in one creature but a flipper in another I'm not sure why you'd want to make a big deal out of that.

As for some trilobites rolling up I'll have to think about that but offhand it doesn't suggest more than some difference in the way the appendages are arranged, or whatever they are called. The fact that they all have that same overall shape means structure versus a less fixed sort of characteristic. I just can't look at all those various trilobites without putting them in the same class, even the ones where they look like they've unraveled as it were, because they still have that same basic arramgnement of parts.

I don't know which part of what I've said you find so difficult. Body structure doesn't vary much from generation to generation although I suppose it could under certain circumstances, at least in the sense of size, proportion etc., but when I'm talking about changed gene frequencies I'm thinking of what I call the "superficial" characteristics, the eye color, fur color, textures, shapes of features, stuff like that, which vary a lot and


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by caffeine, posted 04-15-2019 2:50 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by dwise1, posted 04-15-2019 9:27 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 04-15-2019 9:59 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2019 10:30 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2019 12:06 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 216 by caffeine, posted 04-16-2019 3:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 195 of 400 (850850)
04-15-2019 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by caffeine
04-15-2019 2:58 PM


Cats' claws are very sharp, dogs' aren't. That's the difference I have in mind. But it's interesting that cheetahs have a different kind from other cats -- "semi" retractible according to Google. Offhand I'd guess there may be a genetic reason for the difference due to the large number of homozygous characteristics of the cheetah, but of course the design does suit the creature's needs. But the difference isn't really all that great. It's still a cat and nowhere nearly doglike. However, I will take it under advisement. Overall I'm interested in the fact that there is a catness to cats that sets them apart as a species, a dogness to dogs and so on and so forth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by caffeine, posted 04-15-2019 2:58 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019