Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
181 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, ringo, WookieeB (8 members, 173 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,451 Year: 7,199/23,288 Month: 1,105/1,214 Week: 117/303 Day: 37/40 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7620
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 721 of 759 (875023)
04-13-2020 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 720 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:06 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Well my prophecy came true with a couple of days. Fastest yet.

Basically you're not interested because you've begun to realise that you're making shit up that you can't defend, yet again. 'Kind' has no objective descriptive value. Done.


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 720 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 2:13 PM Tangle has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 722 of 759 (875029)
04-13-2020 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by Faith
04-12-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it?

That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning?

quote:
Varieties of wheat that have forty-two chromosomes are the most recently evolved and most used types of wheat. All of these varieties have been cultivated by humans (as opposed to growing wild). They are hybrids of twenty-eight-chromosome wheats and wild fourteen-chromosome wheats or grasses. Early bread wheat was the result of the crossing of goat grass (Aegilops tauschii ) with Triticum turgidum. Modern bread wheat varieties have forty-two chromosomes and evolved from crosses between emmer and goat grass, which is the source of the unique glutenin genes that give bread dough the ability to form gluten. Goat grass grows abundantly in the region stretching from Greece to Afghanistan. Descriptions of the fourteen species of wheat that yield the thousands of wheat varieties grown today are provided here. The Natural History of Wheat | Encyclopedia.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 2:40 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 723 of 759 (875032)
04-13-2020 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Tangle
04-13-2020 6:07 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
How very strange of you. I never had the ambition to create a Linnaean chart for creationism, I certainly kjnew I was never going to tackle insects. or sea creatures. I just wanted to spell out Kind up to as far as I could take it with animals I happen to think about a lot. I'm very happy to see where the dog Kind fits into Linnaeus and thank you for the chart that helped in that. Not all creatures are going to fit the "Family" category. I already know Birds don't. So I will probably go on with it at some other time.

Thanks again.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 6:07 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:25 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 724 of 759 (875033)
04-13-2020 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Sarah Bellum
04-13-2020 12:09 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Haven't I answered all this some time before? I vaguely remember having done that. Anyway:

Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it?

I hardly think so. I know breeding practices have changed in recent times after they learned that purebreds are subject to diseases. Now they go for some hybridization to keep the animals healthy, hopefully withtou loxing the breed's best qualities.

Going for the purebred is what I have in mind of course because that's where the genetic reduction is most dramatic and takes its toll in compromised health. The point is that when you breed for certain characteristics you are eliminating the characteristcs you don't want in your breed. This eventually leads to homozygosity for the characteristics you are breeding for. Too much homozygosity is bad for the animal's health but it is what creates a purebred.

I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah. It is a wonderful animal,but its survival is threatened because its genetic depletion makes it vulnerable and compromises its ability to reproduce. The cheetah came about by a drastic reduction in numbers in Nature, which is how purebreds are made through domestic breeding, and the genetic result is the same as if it were intentionally bred for its dharacteristics. Dogs never lose their ability to reproduce with other breeds even when drastically genetically reduced, but the cheetah has lost that ability.

That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning?

Eh what? Genetic reduction or depletion goes with the formation of new phenotypes. You put the phenotype in your toaster.

quote:
quote:

Varieties of wheat that have forty-two chromosomes are the most recently evolved and most used types of wheat. All of these varieties have been cultivated by humans (as opposed to growing wild). They are hybrids of twenty-eight-chromosome wheats and wild fourteen-chromosome wheats or grasses. Early bread wheat was the result of the crossing of goat grass (Aegilops tauschii ) with Triticum turgidum. Modern bread wheat varieties have forty-two chromosomes and evolved from crosses between emmer and goat grass, which is the source of the unique glutenin genes that give bread dough the ability to form gluten. Goat grass grows abundantly in the region stretching from Greece to Afghanistan. Descriptions of the fourteen species of wheat that yield the thousands of wheat varieties grown today are provided here. The Natural History of Wheat | Encyclopedia.com


An increase in the number of chromosomes doesn't mean there's no genetic depletion if that's what you're getting at. Sometimes genes duplicate, sometimes chromosomes break apart. Nothing new is added.

Yes some species can be bred to produce an enormous number of varieties or subspecies with wonderful new characteristics. It's built into their genome. It's microevolution, which is variation built into the genome. You get marvelous new phenotypes from such breeding. This built-in ability of the genome of all creatures gives us human beings the ability to make all kinds of changes and improvements in all creatures as God commanded us to do. But it's always only variation within the genome, getting new variations on the creature, not evolution in the sense of the ToE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-13-2020 12:09 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 756 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-14-2020 11:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7620
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 725 of 759 (875036)
04-13-2020 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Faith
04-13-2020 2:13 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Faith writes:

Thanks again.

Your welcome, but you know that's as basic as basic gets. I really wish you'd actually learn something.


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 723 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 2:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 3:29 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 726 of 759 (875037)
04-13-2020 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Tangle
04-13-2020 3:25 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
What haven't I "learned?" I've learned how Linnaeus organized things in some categories. But I need a different approach since I'm trying to define the Kind. Meanwhile I "learned" the other point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:25 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:41 PM Faith has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7620
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 727 of 759 (875038)
04-13-2020 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by Faith
04-13-2020 2:40 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Faith writes:

I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah. It is a wonderful animal,but its survival is threatened because its genetic depletion makes it vulnerable and compromises its ability to reproduce. The cheetah came about by a drastic reduction in numbers in Nature, which is how purebreds are made through domestic breeding, and the genetic result is the same as if it were intentionally bred for its characteristics.

Uh? Where are you getting that from? Cheetah's are related to pumas and lynx and evolved in the usual way millions of years ago.

Cheetah - Wikipedia


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 724 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 2:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:23 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7620
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 728 of 759 (875039)
04-13-2020 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Faith
04-13-2020 3:29 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Faith writes:

What haven't I "learned?"

Pretty much everything.

I've learned how Linnaeus organized things in some categories. But I need a different approach since I'm trying to define the Kind. Meanwhile I "learned" the other point of view.

There isn't another point of view, if you're arranging organisms by morphology and genetic relatedness you are forced to arrive at our current taxonomy because that is how it is done.


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 726 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 3:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:46 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 729 of 759 (875041)
04-13-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Tangle
04-13-2020 3:37 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post. Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:37 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 4:35 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 730 of 759 (875042)
04-13-2020 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:23 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post.

But Faith, you made that up. Cheetahs went through a very severe bottleneck but you’re the only one who claims that it changed them much.

quote:
Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.

Nobody agreed with you Faith. There is no “moving the goal posts”. That’s another thing you made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:48 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 731 of 759 (875044)
04-13-2020 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by Tangle
04-13-2020 3:41 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
What I learned is that the Kind has very little to do with the Linnaean taxonomy. The Family category does it for dogs but not for birds and probably other creatures will be all over the Linnaean chart as far as establishing their Kind goes. The Kind is ultimately genetically defined and that works just fine for the Family level for dogs, but nothing above that on the taxonomic chart is relevant except for academic purposes. Sure, Mammal, Carnivore, but irrelevant for defining the original created Kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2020 3:41 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:00 PM Faith has responded
 Message 747 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2020 2:34 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 732 of 759 (875045)
04-13-2020 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by PaulK
04-13-2020 4:35 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Oh fer…. Read up on the concerns of conservationists for the terrible endangerment of the cheetah due to its genetically depleted condition due to the bottleneck/Founder Effect. I didn't make that up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 4:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 4:56 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 733 of 759 (875048)
04-13-2020 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:48 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Oh fer…. Read up on the concerns of conservationists for the terrible endangerment of the cheetah due to its genetically depleted condition due to the bottleneck/Founder Effect. I didn't make that up.
?

I didn’t say that you made that up. I explained that what you made up was the idea that the bottleneck caused significant morphological changes.

I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah

Cheetahs were cheetah’s before the bottleneck. Your idea that the bottleneck produced the cheetah is an invention. I know because I asked you for evidence and you had none (and I looked and found none myself),


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:57 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 734 of 759 (875049)
04-13-2020 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by PaulK
04-13-2020 4:56 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I see, well when you drastically reduce genetic diversity it stands to reason you are going to get phenotypic change because that's how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 4:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:03 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 735 of 759 (875051)
04-13-2020 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:46 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
What I learned is that the Kind has very little to do with the Linnaean taxonomy.

I don’t think you can call it “learning” when you are making it up.

You haven’t made any serious effort to determine “Kind” boundaries.

quote:
The Kind is ultimately genetically defined and that works just fine for the Family level for dogs, but nothing above that on the taxonomic chart is relevant except for academic purposes.

And how would you know that? You haven’t discussed the actual genetics at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 738 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:22 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 © 2020