Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
166 online now:
Coragyps, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (6 members, 160 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,046 Year: 2,794/23,288 Month: 985/1,809 Week: 104/313 Day: 21/39 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7343
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 556 of 573 (871206)
01-30-2020 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 547 by Faith
01-29-2020 2:06 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
Faith writes:

Absolutely, juist what I'm talking about although I haven't regarded such a large portion of a population to be a bottleneck. But as usual that's just a semantic glitch people like to throw ibnto the discussion from time to time.

Facts aren't glitches.

No problem, the wpoint is that the smaller population WILL lose the infrequently occurring alleles and under those circumstance some dramatically new traits can develop and create a new composite phenotype quite different from the parent population and all the others in the ring species. This is due to the loss of genetic diversity, in this case the loss of the low frequency alleles. Just what I've been saying has to happen.

Nobody disagrees with you. It's a statement of the bleeding obvious.

And they call the resulting new population with its own new traits a "species."

No they don't. They're still the same species.

I'd call it a "subspecies" or variation myself,

Then you'd be wrong, it's the same species.

another population will develop out of this one two by the emigtation of some number to a new location where it will also develop its own peculiar composite phenotype due to reduced genetic diversity.

It's what happens after separation that matters. Separation itself doesn't change anything. After a small population separates and survives it is more susceptible to genetic drift. Genetic drift is an evolutionary event where genes are shuffled over time causing a diversion from the main group. Over time mutations start to increase genetic diversity in the isolated population and it eventually recovers but may be sufficiently different from the original group to not be able to mate with it. Then we have a new species. But the animals would still be very similar - they'd still be the same genus.

Evolution above genus takes a very long time and will be made up of many different evolutionary events.

Bottlenecks probably mostly kill species because of the reduction on genetic diversity causing a genetic 'meltdown' or the population being too small to physically survive. But if they do survive gene diversity can and does recover.


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 547 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 2:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 6:55 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 557 of 573 (871209)
01-30-2020 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by Tangle
01-30-2020 3:06 AM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
And they call the resulting new population with its own new traits a "species."

No they don't. They're still the same species.

In "ring species," yes they do call each subsequent population a "species."

Separate itself doesn't change anything

Separation brings about the isolation of a new set of gene frequencies. If this new population persists in reproductive isolation those new gene frequencies will eventually produce a new composite phenotype, or new "species" or "subspecies." There may also be genetic drift but it's the blending of the set of gene frequencies that is the main thing that brings about the new composite phenotype. Of course I'm disagreeing with mainstream evolutionist theory but I argue that genetic drift is not the main influence and neither are mutations, it's the mixing of the new set of gene frequencies created by the population split that is the cause of the new "species" or "subspecies" or "variation" etc. Reduced genetic diversity is always part of this picture as you can't get new phenotypes unless you lose the old ones.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2020 3:06 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2020 11:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7343
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 558 of 573 (871230)
01-30-2020 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by Faith
01-30-2020 6:55 AM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
Faith writes:

In "ring species," yes they do call each subsequent population a "species."

No they don't. It's separation plus time that creates a new species.

Ring species are spread out in a chain where the very long chain creates the separation A B C D E F G etc. eg B never meets G so even though there are links to G the two populations can differ over time. But these forms are relatively rare, you're better sticking to physical separation to understand it better.

Separation brings about the isolation of a new set of gene frequencies. If this new population persists in reproductive isolation those new gene frequencies will eventually produce a new composite phenotype, or new "species" or "subspecies." There may also be genetic drift but it's the blending of the set of gene frequencies that is the main thing that brings about the new composite phenotype.

I doubt anyone would disagree with you, this is all standard stuff.

Of course I'm disagreeing with mainstream evolutionist theory

Not so far you're not.

I argue that genetic drift is not the main influence and neither are mutations,

You don't argue that, you just assert it.

it's the mixing of the new set of gene frequencies created by the population split that is the cause of the new "species" or "subspecies" or "variation" etc.

So now you go wrong. Population isolation is only one of the drivers of evolution, it often starts the process but simply shuffling existing genes is not enough to create the diversity of life that we see.

Reduced genetic diversity is always part of this picture as you can't get new phenotypes unless you lose the old ones.

Reduced genetic diversity is only part of the picture when population isolation occurs. Not all evolution starts with a bottleneck and other genetic and environmental changes are necessary to make radical changes over time. These require mutations. Mutations allow ape ancestors to become modern apes and humans. Their genomes show those mutations. Modern apes and humans have the same genomes but with a number of changes. We share the same phenotype but with a number changes. The changes are mutations.


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 557 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 6:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 559 of 573 (871240)
01-30-2020 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
01-29-2020 4:00 PM


Logic fails, proves nothing
It's not an assumption, I've worked it out. ...

... based on erroneous assumptions, as we shall see.

... First you can't maintain a species in ... a breed in artificial selection if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation.

Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.

First you can't maintain a species in the wild ... if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation.

Natural selection is not concerned with maintaining a species, it is concerned with individual surviving to breed and pass on whatever gene combinations they have, whether through gene flow or mutation. If that means evolving into a new species so be it. It is the ecology that determines the survival/breeding fitness of the population, which mean adaptation to a changing system over each generation.

So your premise 1A is invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.

Since ... breeds ... maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare.

Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.

Since ... species in the wild maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare.

Except that they don't: there is variety within every species, and the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. If the ecology doesn't change then the selection will continue to be adapted to that ecology, culling out the outliers, but if the ecology changes then the focus of selection will shift towards varieties better suited to the new ecology. This has been observed.

Using a special case of apparent stasis in some populations while ignoring the documented changes in other populations means you are guilty of a logical fallacy of the part for the whole and of cherry picking only the evidence that suits your position.

So the premise 1B is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion. It is also distinct from premise 1A and should be listed as a second premise.

Second, if such increases do occur, ... from ... mutation, since mutation doesn't contribute much change in a short period of time ...

Actually premise 3.

This is an unsubstantiated assumption based only on your opinion and not on any facts, details, measurements or documentation.

Meanwhile we do have evidence of mutations causing speciation by polyploidy and other examples, mostly in plants, but animals are also involved.

In addition there is no requirement for evolution of a new species to occur "in a short period of time" so that means you are ignoring evolution over longer periods of time, again the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.

So the premise 2A (3) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.

Second, if such increases do occur, usually from resumed gene flow ...

While this is rare compared to actual mutational changes it is instructive to note what happens when this does occur.

When two populations are isolated from gene flow they will each accrue mutations that the other population does not have. When they rejoin these new mutations will be mixed into the general population, adding genetic diversity and you can get hybrids with some from population A and some from population B. Depending on the length of isolation, you can get (a) virtually no effect, (b) hybrid vigor (Heterosis), (c) Inbreeding depression - Wikipedia or (d) sterile offspring (eg mules).

There are observed cases where hybrid of such daughter population cross-breeding are more fit than either population and they then supplant the parent species.

See https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19915

So you have that one backwards and ignore the larger picture.

... then if a population split occurs or any other kind of selection we will again have reduced genetic diversity which always occurs when new traits form a new composite phenotype. ...

This uses your premise as a conclusion, another logical fallacy of begging the question.

This also assumes this is always the case, when evidence shows it is not. Another case of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.

And this also assumes that a temporary situation lasts, when the evidence again is that mutations add to the gene pool.

So the premise 2B (4) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.

Selection IS the driving force of evolution and it always decreases genetic diversity.

Ignoring the role of mutation, so again this is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.

Selection is ONE of the driving forces, mutation is ANOTHER, and the ecology is a third major driving force.

This is also a non-sequitur fallacy introducing selection in the conclusion.

So your final conclusion is not supported by your premises AND none of the premises support a valid conclusion.

Epic fail.

You have not "proved" anything but ignorance.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•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 549 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 560 of 573 (871246)
01-30-2020 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by RAZD
01-30-2020 1:24 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.

*Yawn*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 1:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 2:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 10:19 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 566 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2020 1:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15932
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 561 of 573 (871247)
01-30-2020 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
01-30-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
quote:
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.

Sadly for you Faith, reality doesn’t not agree that it “ought” to be the way you want it. Maybe you “ought” to have a real argument instead of a collection of unlikely opinions, but you don’t.

That is why you keep losing. And why this silly pretence if yours is a waste of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 3:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 562 of 573 (871255)
01-30-2020 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by PaulK
01-30-2020 2:35 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
TYou guys sling around the word "reality" as if that in itself made your comments realistic, but it's just a lot of hot air. Someday reality will bite you in the butt and you'll know what reality really is.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 3:27 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 564 by jar, posted 01-30-2020 3:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15932
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 563 of 573 (871259)
01-30-2020 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Faith
01-30-2020 3:17 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
quote:
TYou guys sling around the word "reality" as if that in itself made your comments realistic, but it's just a lot of hot air.

No, that’s you.

quote:
Someday reality will bite you in the butt and you'll know what reality really is.

Yeah, sure, when the AntiChrist comes and grants you the power you “deserve” you’ll brutally punish everyone who dared to tell the truth. I won’t be holding my breath.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 3:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 564 of 573 (871261)
01-30-2020 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Faith
01-30-2020 3:17 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
Faith writes:

Someday reality will bite you in the butt and you'll know what reality really is.

Well then Faith, why don't you present the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains the reality you try to market?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 3:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 565 of 573 (871269)
01-30-2020 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
01-30-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Logic fails, reasoning not encountered in msg 549
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ...

Sadly, for you, I did. Taking out every logical fallacy, errors of omission and bald assertion along the way (detailed in Message 559, the one you skipped over to make this lame one line post).

When I was done, there was nothing left. Nothing to follow.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : St


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•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 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 566 of 573 (871361)
02-01-2020 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
01-30-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing -- blind one liners are not replies
To add to what I said in Message 565 just for clarity

Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ...

So what I did was follow your reasoning line by line in Message 559, checking them for accuracy, and logical validity.

What I found were numerous errors of logic that showed the basis for you conclusion was invalid.

Most errors concerned errors of omission, taking part of the evidence for the whole.

As I have often said, the best explanation covers ALL the evidence, not just select portions of it (ie -- cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined conclusion)

... should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.

What it shows is errors you continue to make, and corrections you ignore: that is not a reasoned argument.

Just as you fluff off other corrections time and again with one-line replies that are just arrogant denial.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•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 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 567 of 573 (871365)
02-01-2020 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by RAZD
01-30-2020 1:24 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. In actual fact most selection is nothing more than the separation of a portion of a population that becomes geographically isolated, and that produces a new identifiable "composite phenotyps" or subpopulation. Nature doesn't "care" about anything, so what? the fact is that this is probably the way new varieite sor subspecies develop in the wild, it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species.

You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say..

I could be sad I guess that you didn't do what I asked, but by now I know it's just standard operating procedure.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 1:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 2:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 570 by frako, posted 02-01-2020 2:55 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 571 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2020 3:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 573 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2020 3:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7343
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 568 of 573 (871366)
02-01-2020 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Faith
02-01-2020 2:02 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
Faith writes:

it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species.

Nope, for example in the case of the peppered moth we KNOW that it changed it's colour because of a gene mutation and the change fixed into the population by natural selection. No isolation of a sub-population involved, just mutation followed by selection. Classic evolutionary theory.


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 567 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:33 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 569 of 573 (871367)
02-01-2020 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Tangle
02-01-2020 2:20 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
The Peppered Moth is not the Standard for all species. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 2:20 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 3:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2867
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 570 of 573 (871368)
02-01-2020 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Faith
02-01-2020 2:02 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
and yet asexual beings evolve.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:02 PM Faith 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