Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 70 (9013 total)
54 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,086 Year: 13,834/23,288 Month: 26/326 Week: 46/92 Day: 9/17 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 736 of 759 (875053)
04-13-2020 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
04-13-2020 4:57 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
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.

So how did that work out for elephant seals? Oh, right. It didn’t, did it? I guess that it doesn’t really work quite the way you think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 737 of 759 (875056)
04-13-2020 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 736 by PaulK
04-13-2020 5:03 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
What ARE you taling about? The elephant seals are certainly genetically depleted. They are able to reproduce in great numbers but they don't have the genetic capacity to vary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 739 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:28 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 738 of 759 (875057)
04-13-2020 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by PaulK
04-13-2020 5:00 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
You just aren't thinking at all. When I say it's genetically determined I am NOT saying I know how, I'm saying that has to be the case whether we know how or not. Sheesh. As far as I know there is no way to know the genetic boundaries. But I do, yes I do, stick to my argument about built-in barriers to evolution. I know you fail to get it, you keep throwing in mutations although they can't make a difference. It does define the boundaries of the Kind functionally. You have to THINK to understand it of course, that does make it difficult.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 741 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 739 of 759 (875059)
04-13-2020 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 737 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:17 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
What ARE you taling about?

The fact that elephant seals are still elephant seals despite the bottleneck. The change you expect didn’t happen. That should be obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:31 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 740 of 759 (875061)
04-13-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 739 by PaulK
04-13-2020 5:28 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Um, seals really don't change a lot. That proves nothing. Actually I'm sure there are changes to the eye of a biologist who studied them before and after their destruction, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:28 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:45 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 741 of 759 (875062)
04-13-2020 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 738 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:22 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
You just aren't thinking at all. When I say it's genetically determined I am NOT saying I know how, I'm saying that has to be the case whether we know how or not

Assuming for the sake of argument that your “Kind” boundaries exist you would still need to look at the genetics to find where they are. You didn’t even try. If you had properly thought about it you would realise that. You obviously didn’t.

quote:
But I do, yes I do, stick to my argument about built-in barriers to evolution. I know you fail to get it, you keep throwing in mutations although they can't make a difference

Obviously I do get it because mutations can and do make a difference.

quote:
It does define the boundaries of the Kind functionally

Then the evidence indicates that there is only one Kind. The twin nested hierarchies are the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 742 of 759 (875067)
04-13-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:31 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolut
quote:
Um, seals really don't change a lot. That proves nothing

But you think that cheetahs changed a lot. But the fossils disagree, according to Wikipedia the major bottleneck is dated to 100,000 years ago (by genetic evidence) but fossils of modern cheetahs appear 1.9 million years ago - and other cheetah species go back twice as far.

You have no evidence that cheetahs changed significantly. It is only an assumption. And to accuse us of “moving the goalposts” when our position has not changed at all is ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:54 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 743 of 759 (875068)
04-13-2020 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 742 by PaulK
04-13-2020 5:45 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolut
I HAVE NO IDEA *HOW MUCH* CHEETAHS CHANGED. ALL I KNOW IS THAT THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE COME THROUGH A BOTTLENECK AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ENDANGERED. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CHANGED. THEY HAD TO CHANGE *SOME* BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET GENETIC REDUCTION, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH CHANGE THEY UNDERWENT THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK AND THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DEGREE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY THEY HAD BEFORE THE BOTTLENECK. SURELY THERE WAS *SOME* CHANGE. I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH, WHY DO YOU?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 5:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 11:43 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 744 of 759 (875081)
04-13-2020 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by Faith
04-13-2020 5:54 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:
I HAVE NO IDEA *HOW MUCH* CHEETAHS CHANGED

So you have no idea iif your assertion is true:

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

Message 724

Funny how you tried to pass it off as a fact when - as you now admit - it’s just something you made up.

And still stranger that when Tangle pointed out the conventional view, you responded with this:

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.

Message 729

How can disagreement with your speculation - a disagreement that has been voiced since you first introduced it here be considered to be “moving the goalposts” ?

quote:
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CHANGED. THEY HAD TO CHANGE *SOME* BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET GENETIC REDUCTION, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH CHANGE THEY UNDERWENT THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK AND THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DEGREE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY THEY HAD BEFORE THE BOTTLENECK.

That might be true if you weren’t claiming otherwise. If the cheetah wasn’t the prime evidence for your idea that reduction in genetic diversity was the driver of morphological change. But we can’t even say that there was any change beyond a reduction in variation, and sine rare traits becoming common - and that is a long way from the bottleneck creating the cheetah or being responsible for it’s special features (which we know isn’t true).

quote:
I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH, WHY DO YOU?

In other words you don’t care if one of your major claims, your primary evidence for your idea is even true. You openly admit to not caring about the truth.

So thanks for the proof that your gratuitous attack in Message 697 was a hypocritical lie.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 5:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 1:20 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 745 of 759 (875083)
04-14-2020 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 744 by PaulK
04-13-2020 11:43 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
Bottleneck HAS to change a creature but how much change depends as I said on how much genetic diversity was present before the bottleneck. That can't be known. But it's irrelevant. The cheetah now is the cheetah and it's so genetically depleted because of the bottleneck it is endangered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2020 11:43 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2020 1:40 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 746 of 759 (875090)
04-14-2020 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 745 by Faith
04-14-2020 1:20 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:
Bottleneck HAS to change a creature but how much change depends as I said on how much genetic diversity was present before the bottleneck.

Which does not change the fact that you claimed that the bottleneck essentially created the cheetah and falsely accused “evolutionists” of “moving the goalposts” when Tangle disagreed.

Nor does it change the fact that this assertion was your main “evidence” for the idea that “genetic depletion” alone was the main cause of evolutionary change. A view which was obviously implausible in the first place.

And in fact a bottleneck - by definition - will not produce any phenotypic variations that weren’t at least possible before it occurred. And since a bottleneck will favour the more common alleles it isn’t even particularly likely to produce phenotypic variations that were unknown before the bottleneck.

Compounding your dishonesty by trying to sweep it under the carpet is the sort of behaviour that earned you your bad reputation here.

quote:
But it's irrelevant

It was relevant enough for you to try and pass it off as a fact and even try to use it as evidence. Funny how it suddenly became irrelevant.

quote:
The cheetah now is the cheetah and it's so genetically depleted because of the bottleneck it is endangered.

But this is not relevant to the discussion because it is entirely consistent with mainstream views. Let us also note that the dating of the bottleneck is based on the accumulation of variations in the DNA since it occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 1:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 749 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 2:51 AM PaulK has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7996
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 747 of 759 (875093)
04-14-2020 2:34 AM
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
Faith writes:

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.

How do you know, all you've looked at is cats and dogs? And by looked I mean you've seen a picture. You tell us you're not interested in anything else, couldn't care less about insecta but have decided - from total ignorance - that all trilobites are a kind; an entire class, 4 categories above family. Go girl.

Ultimately whatever you do (but of course you won't actually do anything) will arrive at the same classification as our modern taxonomy and you'll then arbitrarily pick a category and claim it to be a kind. You picked family for dogs and cats. Only a few thousand more decisions to make.


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 731 by Faith, posted 04-13-2020 4:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 748 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 2:41 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 748 of 759 (875094)
04-14-2020 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by Tangle
04-14-2020 2:34 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
How do I know mammals and carnivores are irrelevant? Well, I'm the one trying to establish the criteria here so I'm the one who knows that mammals and carnivores don't fit the criteria I'm trying to define, which is very specific features or what I called "points." In the case of dogs and cats that fits "Family" on the Linnaean chart but in the case of birds I think it's "Class" for "Aves.". I also mentioned cattle and deer and pigs and I could add bears. I could look them up on the chart I guess to find out where I think they belong, keeping in mind that all I want to do is find the category where a bear is a bear is a bear quite specifically etc. It wouldn't be "mammalia" or the equivalent of "carnivore" it would be specifically a bear. I'd probably have to break down "Reptiles" in the same way I'd break down "Mammals" but that's a category I haven't looked at. I still need to find that chart I had originally. This seat-of-the-pants discussion has to be pretty limited.

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 747 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2020 2:34 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2020 2:57 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 749 of 759 (875095)
04-14-2020 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 746 by PaulK
04-14-2020 1:40 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
Tangle changed the subject as it is usually discussed, that's why I said what I said. He hasn't been in on previous discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2020 1:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2020 3:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7996
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 750 of 759 (875097)
04-14-2020 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by Faith
04-14-2020 2:41 AM


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

How do I know mammals and carnivores are irrelevant? Well, I'm the one trying to establish the criteria here so I'm the one who knows that mammals and carnivores don't fit the criteria

Right, so you and you alone are the arbiter of what is classed as a kind.

This seat-of-the-pants discussion has to be pretty limited.

And they say Americans don't get irony.


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 748 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 2:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 751 by Faith, posted 04-14-2020 3:00 AM Tangle 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