Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Punk Eek for Redwolf
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 50 (101838)
04-22-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by AdminAsgara
04-22-2004 11:23 AM


your change did fix it on my browser -- some seem to be more sensitive to nesting than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 11:23 AM AdminAsgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 3:44 PM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 32 of 50 (101881)
04-22-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
04-22-2004 11:51 AM


Generally nesting order usually makes a big deal around here, but for some reason it didn't cause a problem with my browser this time.
Oh well, fixed it anyway. Glad it did the trick for you.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:51 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Charity
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 50 (101915)
04-22-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
04-21-2004 11:05 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
"Do you know that you have several mutations yourself. Most are, in fact, neutral. Besides beneficial or not depends on the circumstances."
Hi :-)
"Welcome here GSHS, but if you're first post is representative I suggest you ask more questions and make fewer statments. You might be astonished to know that you have a heck of a lot to learn."
Ok here is a question I am busting to ask. Perhaps you can give me an answer. Tell me what my mutations are please. I am interested to know this. Thank you in advance for your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2004 11:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Charity
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 50 (101916)
04-22-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GSHS
04-21-2004 10:52 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
BTW sorry about the double s/n's I am GSHS. The first time I tried to register, it did not work, then it did but only after I had reregistered. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GSHS, posted 04-21-2004 10:52 PM GSHS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 5:54 PM Charity has replied

  
Charity
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 50 (101918)
04-22-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Charity
04-22-2004 5:52 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
You can delete the "GSHS". I prefer Charity. Thanks again. :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 5:52 PM Charity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 6:00 PM Charity has not replied

  
Charity
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 50 (101920)
04-22-2004 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Charity
04-22-2004 5:54 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
This forum is taking me a little while to get used to navigating. It's a little different than what I have used in the past. Anyhoo, about the beneficial mutations. I have not seen any. I would not argue the case if any were proven. I agree there are many many bad mutations. Simple fruit fly experiments can prove that over and over again. However, beneficial? ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 5:54 PM Charity has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Wounded King, posted 04-22-2004 7:46 PM Charity has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 37 of 50 (101936)
04-22-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mark24
04-22-2004 11:06 AM


microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution

Gradualism does not "occur in the rocks"; if it did, there would have been no need for PE in the first place.

Yes it does. You can draw a straight line between P. ralstoni & P. jarrovii. It will be diagonal indicating gradualism.
As near as I can tell, you're talking about one kind of proto monkey sort of morphing into a slightly different proto monkey, based on a study of teeth in a situation in which that's pretty much all anybody has to work with (there do not appear to be any images of the two specific creatures you mention on the net).
Meanwhile, you've Gould and any number of real experts on record to the effect that there simply is no evidence of macroevolution the planet, and Gould devising an entirely new version of evolution to try to take that embarassing fact into account while maintaining some semblence of a united front against the creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2004 7:30 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 8:05 PM redwolf has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 50 (101949)
04-22-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redwolf
04-22-2004 7:01 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
I sometimes think that it was more innocent for Gould at first in that he was "embarssed" about NOT including Croizat in his work while seeing a logically extrapolatable and potentially statistcally testing outworking of Huxley digrammetic use of anagenesis no matter how he came to re-write it in his "final" years. NO ONE CAN READ Croizat and then DO biology without refering to him and Gould asserted he did "read" Croizat in grad school. I think he found he could get away with not reporting on his reading and to this day few people even know that there is such work to be read that does not give one a straight anagenetic view of biological change but neither must one NECESSARILY associate with Gould's final put out the spandrel space which it was not for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 7:01 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 39 of 50 (101959)
04-22-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Charity
04-22-2004 6:00 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
Dear Charity,
How many mutational screens have you performed which have led you to conclude that are no beneficial mutations? What sort of positive mutation can you envisage which would be as obvious and clear cut in drosophila as an embryonic lethal. It is highly unlikely that the majority of beneficial mutations take the form of radical reorganisations of organ or limb morphology. The most severe beneficial morphological mutation I can think of is the loss of wisdom teeth. Certainly not as obvious to the eye as someone with a genetic defect leading to malformed/ missing limbs.
As far as a beneficial mutations go, your inability to see any suggests either a reluctance to read the primary literature or else a obstinate intransigence stopping you from believing what you read. Perhaps your criteria are unusual, what would you consider to be the hallmarks of a beneficial mutation, from an evolutionary perspective it would be one that would impart a reproductive advantage to the posessor of that mutation, or if you like selfish gene theories then to the mutant gene itself. Clearly such a beneficial mutation (Still thinking about flies here), unless it imparts a truly exceptional benefit, is going to take many many generations to become apparent through the numbers and also an awful lot of wor to identify both by classical genetic methods and molecular genetics.
I'm not going to go into an exhaustive list of references for beneficial mutations here, there are already enough of those on the many previous beneficial mutations threads.
Just bear in mind that it is almost always easier to break a complex system than it is to improve it, and living beings and their development are highly complex systems, that doesn't mean that they are incapable of improvement.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 6:00 PM Charity has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 40 of 50 (101967)
04-22-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redwolf
04-22-2004 7:01 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
redwolf,
As near as I can tell, you're talking about one kind of proto monkey sort of morphing into a slightly different proto monkey, based on a study of teeth in a situation in which that's pretty much all anybody has to work with (there do not appear to be any images of the two specific creatures you mention on the net).
Yep, & the evolutionary rate change is gradual & constant. You claimed gradualism didn't occur "in the rocks", all I had to do was produce one example where it did. I could produce more, but one is enough to falsify your claim.
Meanwhile, you've Gould and any number of real experts on record to the effect that there simply is no evidence of macroevolution the planet, and Gould devising an entirely new version of evolution to try to take that embarassing fact into account while maintaining some semblence of a united front against the creationists.
This is the third attempt at moving the goalposts in exactly the same way. Please read the following capitalised, italicised section very, very carefully; PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT MACROEVOLUTION. OK?
Now, given that you appear to have given up on attempting to defend your original comments 1-5, can I assume that you accept the criticisms of said points? If not, could you please backtrack & address them.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 7:01 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:34 PM mark24 has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 41 of 50 (102003)
04-22-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mark24
04-22-2004 8:05 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution

Yep, & the evolutionary rate change is gradual & constant. You claimed gradualism didn't occur "in the rocks"...
Nobody disputes microevolution and you don't even need to look at rocks to find it. What is missing is anything anywhere in the world indicating that any sort of a MACROEVOLUTIONARY change has ever occurred.
It ain't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 8:05 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 3:33 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 04-23-2004 4:20 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2004 1:27 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 04-27-2004 6:33 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 42 of 50 (102112)
04-23-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:34 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
Dear Redwolf,
What would constitute such evidence in your opinion? Are you considering 'macroevolution' to be synonymous with speciation or something operating at a still higher level?
If you consider speciation equivalent to 'macroevolution' then there should be an abundance of evidentiary sources, such as the many examples of ring species.
If of course you consider 'macroevolution' to be a fish suddenly turning into a bird then we might have a bit of a problem.
If nobody disputes microevultion then whats the problem, lets just leave the term 'macroevolution' out, I never liked that distinction anyway. Lots and lots of little bits of microevolution are quite sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 50 (102122)
04-23-2004 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:34 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
redwolf,
This is the fourth attempt at moving the goalposts in exactly the same way. Please read the following capitalised, italicised section very, very carefully; PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT MACROEVOLUTION, & NEITHER IS GRADUALISM MICROEVOLUTION, OK?.
This thread is about Punctated Equilibrium.
Now, given that you appear to have given up on attempting to defend your original comments 1-5, can I assume that you accept the criticisms of said points? If not, could you please backtrack & address them.
I am quite happy to discuss macroevolution & the vast odds against cladograms matching stratigraphy, but only once this thread has been concluded.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-23-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:34 PM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2004 2:13 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 44 of 50 (102185)
04-23-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:34 PM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
I d0- soley on the basis of the TOO MANY XML heirarchies that can be experimentally proposed in natures diversity. G Gladyshev IS sending me information from Russia by snail mail so you can be quite assured this is not a fluke of my own naming despite the possible disagreement on the lack of tree nature that Dobshanksy had already reasoned. I KNOW that the two "?" marks that Huxkley added in his 1957 diagram of vertebrate anagenesis IN SYNC with grades even if ALL EXPANDING FAILS ON SIMPLE DNA SIZE enumeration of apodians vs the SLANT he added for salamders. HE HAD TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO DEFINE A CLADE between birds and mammals. This seperation is ONLY assumed cladistically while panbiogeographers on the other hand must insist on a geological correlation as well. Gould simply maintained this as a conceptual seperation but you and or others are correct to note that it was done at the expense of Creationist Criticism NOT NECESSARY in my generation of biologists and others interested in form-making biologically. The difference of opnion between GPGladyshev (if any exists) is over the abstract nature of the gap that ROTATES between clades and grades. Micro evo CAN be criticized if the theories give different angular momementum measures of any torque involved. For some reason PROVINE refused to write back to me when I pointed out that Wright's shifting balance theory is open as to effects of the Earth's revolution on local rotations and as computers have made the tree making ability of humans much easier this is often done aglogritmically without true or due regard to possible dissections of morph space by group rotations. Gould however left PE in testable state in this regard as far as I understood it but it is not the only alternative to gradualism as CANTOR had already formally shown continuous motion in discontinuous space. Gould simply fomalizes a MINIMAL "line" width tru this space"". The panbiogeographic track width as I have communicated with Grehan in Buffalo IS STILL Undefined so should any WOlfram or other "matix" exist in this abstract space this would apply to Macrothermodyanics while the inverse problem of deriving geographic distributions from DNA info"" may also be possible however like the social c/e consequences this is more difficult to discuss because humanity has no obvious notion of EXACTLY how hierchies in time relate to spatial distances. I will stick with Wright's change thru isolation by distance only. Macrothermo might for instance instruct a more direct way than my way dissecting the "small diffusive effects" by TWO different timeable causal processes but let me stay on topic please.
Micro evo can be questioned precisely (the above was approximately) to the extent that species selection DOES NOT EXIST (ie we ALL come up against the natural history of relative frequency determinations in truth in fact).
I hope this helps. It is not meant as a polemic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 50 (102820)
04-26-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
04-23-2004 4:20 AM


Re: microevolution does not prove toe or macroevolution
bump?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 04-23-2004 4:20 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024