Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8960 total)
38 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (8 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,073 Year: 821/23,288 Month: 821/1,851 Week: 265/365 Day: 26/41 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
jar
Member
Posts: 31978
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 301 of 368 (870043)
01-11-2020 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
01-11-2020 7:32 AM


Re: Basics Faith, learn the basics.
Faith writes:

Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible.

No Faith; those generalities show that it is not impossible but rather inevitable.

Does mutation happen Faith?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:54 AM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7282
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 302 of 368 (870045)
01-11-2020 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
01-11-2020 7:32 AM


Re: Basics Faith, learn the basics.
Faith writes:

Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible.

Right, you want us to genetically sequence all the intermediaries from animals millions of years extinct in order to satisfy your incredulity? (But of course even if that was possible, you wouldn't accept it anyway.)

This is what we have

Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7282
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 303 of 368 (870046)
01-11-2020 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
01-11-2020 7:32 AM


Re: Basics Faith, learn the basics.
Faith writes:

Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible.

Right, you want us to genetically sequence all the intermediaries from animals millions of years extinct in order to satisfy your incredulity? (But of course even if that was possible, you wouldn't accept it anyway.)

This is what we have

Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34322
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 304 of 368 (870047)
01-11-2020 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by jar
01-11-2020 7:41 AM


The Basics are on My Side
Sorry, the generalities are just a fraud in the end. They mean nothing if there is no way to even imagine how you could get genetically from one to the other. They are better explained as independent separately created species. You can't get a mammal from a reptile, can't happen.

It's all wild imagination. It was wild imagination when Darwin dreamed it up and it's still nothing but wild imagination. The genetic stuff is simply not there for the job you imagine happened. Just as you run out of genetic diversity down any given track of normal variation, and here it may help to think breeds, say dog breeds, cattle breeds, whatever, there is no place you can go after you've reached a certain point genetically. You've got your purebred, with its multiple fixed loci and that's the end of it. Sorry, there's nothing after you reach that point and it has to get reached in nature same as in domestic breeding.

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 301 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 7:41 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by jar, posted 01-11-2020 8:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 11:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 305 of 368 (870050)
01-11-2020 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
01-10-2020 11:19 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
When you say evolution "comes to an end" do you mean it only goes so far (the examples of new species evolving that I gave you, for instance) and then just . . . stops?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 01-10-2020 11:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:08 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15805
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 306 of 368 (870051)
01-11-2020 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Faith
01-11-2020 6:12 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Anything I say about chimps and humans is too easily rationalized away by suppositions about the similarities between the body types without the slightest sense of what in the underlying genetic situation would need to change in ways that are not shared by both species. So I'm not going to fall into that trap

If you actually addressed the question and stuck with the differences between the genome that couldn’t happen.

I suppose you are referring to your attempt to argue from anatomical differences - and got it wrong.

So, ther is no trap. That is just another of your smears - invented because you can’t answer the question.

quote:
The reptile to mammal example is therefore more useful

Not when we are talking about the genomes for the obvious reason that we don’t have any genomes from the split or even remotely close to it. There has been a lot of change since the Triassic.

quote:
It is claimed that the mammals evolved from the reptiles and we have some specific organs such as the ear design that supposedly could be traced if someone wants to try.

Because we have anatomical intermediates showing the changes.

quote:
When I try it I immediately run into to such a plethora of unuseful mutations I'm immediately struck by how utterly impossible it would be to get from one to the other.

Mutations that you assume to be “unuseful”. You don’t really know, because you would actually have to study the creatures - and do a good deal of reconstruction that would require expert input to even come up with a decent idea of them, since we only have fossil remains.

If all you have is uninformed opinion - and that is all you have - you can’t honestly expect us to agree with you when we have so much evidence that the change actually occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 6:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 307 of 368 (870052)
01-11-2020 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
01-11-2020 5:18 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
How does one define a different species? For organisms that do not reproduce sexually that's not an easy question. But for two sets of living creatures that do reproduce sexually but cannot interbreed it does seem reasonable to say they belong to different species. That's why we consider horses and donkeys different species, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 5:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:15 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31978
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 308 of 368 (870053)
01-11-2020 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Faith
01-11-2020 7:54 AM


Re: The Basics are on My Side
Faith writes:

They mean nothing if there is no way to even imagine how you could get genetically from one to the other.

But once again, reality shows you are simply wrong. Not only can I imagine it, I described the model, method, process, procedure and mechanism involved.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 309 of 368 (870055)
01-11-2020 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
01-11-2020 5:52 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Of course it's breeding ("artificial" selection rather than "natural" selection). But it is the breeding OF A NEW SPECIES, by any reasonable definition of "species". And all the other examples I gave are of "natural" selection.

One of the main arguments creationists repeat is, "Nobody's ever seen a new species evolve." This is attacking a straw man because evolution is a slow process: when Darwin and Wallace and others developed the idea in the 19th century they talked about the evidence for common ancestry of different living creatures, they didn't say single-toed modern horses descended from multi-toed ancestors in their lifetimes! Saying you haven't seen a new species evolve so it doesn't happen is like claiming the tectonic plates do not shift the continents around because you haven't seen Australia move (much) since last year.

But it turns out new species have been observed to evolve. What's your response?

quote:
Using the term "species" creates this illusion for one thing. It's just semantic manipulation, word magic. Call them "subspecies" perhaps, but "species" implies something false.
Creationists make their straw-man argument and when it blows up in their faces they want to change the meaning of the word "species"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 5:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:21 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34322
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 310 of 368 (870057)
01-11-2020 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:05 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
When you say evolution "comes to an end" do you mean it only goes so far (the examples of new species evolving that I gave you, for instance) and then just . . . stops?

I deny first of all that those are new species, because I deny the whole idea of "speciation" which I consider to be an artificial definition. All you have is the same species that has lost its ability to breed with the parent population, sometimes because of reduced genetic diversity which I'm talkinab tout here as what brings evolution to an end down any particular track. A track would be like a breed. It comes to an end when you get a purebred. The rest of the dog population or whatever it is can keep on microevolving down their own particular tracks to their own purebred position. The point is that at purebred that's where you run out of genetic diversity and when you've run out there's no more evolving that can happen because there isn't the genetic stuff for it to happen. Think cheetah or elephant seal. They arrived there by founder effect but it's the same thing genetically: they're at the point of fixed loci for all their salient characteristics and there is no more genetic stuff at a fixed or homozygous locus for continued change. That's the "end" I'm talking about. And it's all within the same species; it's all microevolution, this idea that speciation is macroevolution is a big delusion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:05 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 10:23 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34322
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 311 of 368 (870058)
01-11-2020 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:11 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
How does one define a different species?
\

Yes for the ToE that's supposedly difficult, but it isn't for a creationist. If it were REALLY difficult, that is if evolution were actually true then you could never define a species at all, it would all be one big blur of "transitionals." Which is what I think Darwin was really talking about when he talked about transitionals. A few here and there is nothing like what he had in mind. He had a near continuous blur of differences. Anyway there's really no problem identifying a species if you don't let yourself get all confused by such a bogus concept as "speciation." A cat is a cat is a cat. There are no transitional cats they are all cats. Dogs are dogs are dogs. Same thing. There are very few species where you might run into such a problem.

For organisms that do not reproduce sexually that's not an easy question. But for two sets of living creatures that do reproduce sexually but cannot interbreed it does seem reasonable to say they belong to different species. That's why we consider horses and donkeys different species, for example.

Yes it seems "reasonable" but in the end it just confuses things. They are still the same species that have lost the ability to breed with the parent. That's a lot clearer and it describes the facts just fine.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:11 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34322
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 312 of 368 (870059)
01-11-2020 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 8:46 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
PLEASE DO NOT IMPUTE THE USUAL CREATIONIST CANARDS TO ME. I HARDLY EVER USE ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

You say new species have been observed to evolve and want my response, which is it's a monumental delusion. It's "word magic," you CALL it evolution, you call it MACROevolution and all you've done is call it something it isn't, by using the completely artificial definition of inability to breed with the parent population.

Do you call the achievement of a purebred Hereford or Angus to be "speciation? Do you? How about a purebred Great Dane or Chihuahua?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 8:46 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 313 of 368 (870060)
01-11-2020 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Faith
01-11-2020 9:08 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
this idea that speciation is macroevolution is a big delusion
If you define "macroevolution" as something that only takes place over millions of years and then say that it doesn't happen because human scientists haven't observed it you are not arguing logically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 2:39 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17815
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 314 of 368 (870068)
01-11-2020 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Faith
01-11-2020 7:54 AM


Re: The Basics are on My Side
Faith writes:

They mean nothing if there is no way to even imagine how you could get genetically from one to the other.


That's just silly. Changing one DNA molecule to another is no different from changing "debit card" to "bad credit".

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 7:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34322
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 315 of 368 (870074)
01-11-2020 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 10:23 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I said nothing about time. It's not macroevolution because it's not macroevolution, it is not a new species, it's nothing but what I've called "word magic," just a new definition based on the artificial idea of speciation as based on inability to breed with the parent population. In many cases that could just be due to the decreased genetic diversity in the new population brought about by high homozygosity, i.e. fixed loci, which is very likely to have occurred at the end of a series of populations, such as in ring species. I don't know how many situations are similar to this one so I'm guessing that some are. After a series of such population emigrations with reproductive isolation you run out of genetic diversity which coule cause enough of a genetic mismatch to make breeding impossible. And that means that the situation is the exact opposite from what we should expect from "speciation," which implies further ability to evolve; but as a matter of fact if the cause of the inability to breed with the parent population is genetic mismatch due to fixed loci then there is in fact LESS ability to evolve from that point.

But I'm not stuck on this, I just think it's very likely one common explanation but there could be others.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 10:23 AM Sarah Bellum 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 © 2020