Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JoeT, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,849 Year: 16,885/19,786 Month: 1,010/2,598 Week: 256/251 Day: 27/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 4 of 785 (854639)
06-11-2019 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
06-11-2019 2:51 AM


Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form. For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.

Please demonstrate to us that human breeding of dogs introduced targeted mutations into their genomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 06-11-2019 2:51 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 11:50 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 45 of 785 (854739)
06-12-2019 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dredge
06-12-2019 2:37 AM


Dredge quotes:
quote:
"In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)


And yet, if you read the entire article all of the changes in wing morphology reversed back to the original shape in only 15 generations when natural conditions returned. Does that not tell you something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 2:37 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 46 of 785 (854741)
06-12-2019 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
06-12-2019 3:13 AM


Not silly at all. If such an evolution is possible then it ought to be possible to hypothesize a plausible series of genetic changes that could bring it about over millions of years. A mutation here, a mutation there, etc. Since obviously nobody can do this and won't even try, we know the ToE is a complete krock.

But there IS NO MUTATION in Dredge's scenario. Animal breeders do not induce mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-12-2019 3:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dredge, posted 06-13-2019 1:35 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Dredge, posted 06-14-2019 2:11 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Dredge, posted 06-14-2019 2:17 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 78 of 785 (854802)
06-12-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
06-12-2019 7:11 PM


I haven't finished reading to the end of the thread yet, but so far Dredge isn't engaging with any of the information provided to him. I'd like to see him explain how people are wrong in their criticisms of his views, but instead he's just ignoring them, making discussion impossible.

Discussion is obviously not the objective.

Some posters are simply not serious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 06-12-2019 7:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 97 of 785 (854827)
06-13-2019 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dredge
06-12-2019 11:50 PM


Sorry, but I don’t understand your question ...

I"m sorry that my questions are so difficult for you.

Since you have so many other responses, I'll withdraw my question for the time being.

Not that I think you had any intention of answering, though.

(which is probably due to the facts that I have a fragile eggshell mind and my IQ is only 9).

Hmm, I thought it was 19.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 11:50 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dredge, posted 06-16-2019 6:08 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 163 of 785 (854959)
06-14-2019 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
06-14-2019 11:03 AM


If you are dealing with just a single population through time, how do you determine when they have become a new species? It's a bit like trying to determine when some goes from being skinny to being fat. It's easy to see the differences between the end points, but there isn't a single microsecond in time where they go from being skinny to fat.

This is a bit different for two populations of sexually reproducing organisms that split off from one another. In this case, we can determine if they are different species by looking at gene flow and divergence. If there isn't any significant interbreeding between the two populations resulting in the genes of the two populations diverging then they are separate species. Obviously, we can't see if fossils can interbreed with other fossils or with living populations.


And so, as usual, it's a little more complex than the comic-book version of evolution that anti-evos frequently peddle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 06-14-2019 11:03 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 199 of 785 (855056)
06-15-2019 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by caffeine
06-14-2019 4:28 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
I think you're very wrong. She doesn't get it.

I tend to agree.

Sure, her opinion is coloured by her religious opinions; ...

I believe this to be an understatement. "Steel-jacketed" might be a better word than "coloured".

... but if we approach every disagreement with Faith as if she understands all the words we're using in the same way as we do but pretending not to, we're never going to get anywhere.

Ummmmm, ... yyyyyyeaaaah .... Good luck on that.

And after reading the last couple pages of posts, how is any other approach likely to work out?

I honestly admire your equanimity here along with your knowledge base, but I think that most of us have given up on a rational discussion in the face of hard-core denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2019 4:28 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2019 12:44 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 318 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-18-2019 12:31 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 491 of 785 (855998)
06-25-2019 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by JonF
06-25-2019 2:32 PM


She's saying that the nested hierarchy can't be created by mutations.

I'll place a bet that she says you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by JonF, posted 06-25-2019 2:32 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 723 of 785 (857313)
07-07-2019 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by AZPaul3
07-07-2019 1:14 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
At the risk of continuing off topic, I think it might be a 'good conversation to have' about lying and forum courtesy.

Is she?

I understand your frustrations but might it be that Our Lady Of Faith is an actual bonafide batshit crazy religious person with delusions of sanity?

As calculus is beyond the mental grasp of a 4th grader so reality is beyond the mental grasp of this poor demented crazy person?

Think bag lady flailing around mumbling in the corner of the parking lot with nothing in her grocery cart but a bible.


I agree, I don't believe that a 'true believer' is necessarily lying. They firmly believe what they say. I think that a lie implies the intent to deceive or report false information. While the information is false, if someone believes it, then it is not necessarily a lie. The question becomes one of when can a deceiver be considered consciously corrected. In this case, our experience says 'never'. So, as Ned stated, it's all a waste of time.

Having said this, I think it is also true that the casual dismissal (without evidence or reason) of someone's extensive and carefully written post strains the fabric of forum civility and should be discouraged.

I mean, did we really expect this thread to go any differently?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by AZPaul3, posted 07-07-2019 1:14 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 4:23 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 743 of 785 (857416)
07-08-2019 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 741 by ringo
07-08-2019 11:59 AM


Re: Creationist mindset
What would be an incentive for you to learn? Telling you you're right?

A participation trophy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 11:59 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by AZPaul3, posted 07-08-2019 12:11 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019