Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
75 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, kjsimons, Theodoric (4 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,750 Year: 862/6,534 Month: 862/682 Week: 97/445 Day: 13/30 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 241 of 248 (500887)
03-02-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Black
03-02-2009 4:32 AM


Black,

This:

REPOST OF MY LAST POST:
RAZD,
I think you're asking the wrong question. The question should be; Where did our universe, in its smallest form, come from? rather where did the first biological atom come from?

Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 04:38 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 04:39 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 04:39 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 05:10 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 05:12 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 05:13 AM: edit
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 05:13 AM: edit

Is entirely different from your previous post, and totally irrelevant to the topic.

This:

Message 235

RAZD,
I think you're asking the wrong question. The question should be: Why does the theory of "mutation" have to be interpretated to support macroevolution?
Edited by Black, 03-02-2009 04:31 AM: edit

Is different from your original message 235 (posted 02*25*2009 02:41 AM and replied to on 02*25*2009 07:34 AM):

I think you're asking the wrong question. What is the biological mechinism that allows evolution to process from microevolution to macroevolution?

It appears that my last reply was wasted on you. I also note that you still have not addressed what you think "macroevolution" involves, so if you want to continue a debate here, this is your homework assignment:

To reply to this thread, and be on topic, define what you think "macroevolution" involves.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : post times and dates added


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 238 by Black, posted 03-02-2009 4:32 AM Black has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 3890 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 242 of 248 (501083)
03-04-2009 5:05 AM


re...creation
Hi.

I've just browsed the last pages of this thread, regretting not being able to come more often on the forum. But i simply fell in love with this very funny but still relatively useful link infidel posted:


microevolution = macroevolution + time

Thank you infidel, though it may never be an effective tool to make creationist understand what "overtime" means, we can try using it, just in case we're tired of words, and accused of simplicism or naiveness.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 4264 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 243 of 248 (503993)
03-23-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

That's my question. If there are no limits, then why are there no "sliding scale" series at present?

Why is life all settled in niches instead of being so segregated? If Darwin was correct, there would be no NEED for a fossil record. There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.

And I don't really mean one. I mean one under every rock. You'd be stepping on all kinds of transitional forms. You'd have a scaled "one" for breakfast and a feathered "one" for dinner. We'd all learn about "Ring Species" cause they'd be all around us, rings of every size and shape. There'd be ring species in our back yard and others that are strung global. Microbiology would be an endless series of evolutionary rings. Kind of obvious, when you think about it for 30 seconds. Instead there are 2 or 3 limited examples set on stages with the horns sounding triumphant!

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 10:18 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 245 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-23-2009 10:57 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 247 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-23-2009 11:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2009 11:48 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 244 of 248 (503994)
03-23-2009 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 10:14 PM


quote:
If Darwin was correct, there would be no NEED for a fossil record. There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.

Please explain exactly why you believe this is a necessary consequence of Darwinian evolution, because nobody who studies it seems to agree with you, and I'd like to tell them why they are wrong.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1961 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 245 of 248 (503997)
03-23-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 10:14 PM


Sky writes:

If there are no limits, then why are there no "sliding scale" series at present?

Start with a population that gets divided in half. Since they now go their separate ways they can diverge from each other genetically. As each changes with time they become different/distinct until they no longer can interbreed etc.
So why aren't there existing variations between them? Why does the ToE predict that there should be?

The sliding scale occurs over time not over space, with the exception of ring species which do both.
There is no connection between the two groups that requires what you demand.

Take the original population and divide into 10 groups. Isolate them. Now we would expect them to become equally divergent one from another, not a gradual gradation from one extreme to another between them.

Is this your thought and objection or something you read w/o thinking about it in creationist literature?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2009 11:11 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 246 of 248 (503999)
03-23-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by shalamabobbi
03-23-2009 10:57 PM


Take the original population and divide into 10 groups. Isolate them. Now we would expect them to become equally divergent one from another, not a gradual gradation from one extreme to another between them.

An example of this is how easily artificial selection can take a population, say of wolves, and through selection and isolation develop breeds, in this case of dogs, where the different breeds are quite distinctive, and none of the traits of the various breeds exist within the population of wolf traits:


Click to enlarge

As long as each breed remains reproductively isolated there will be no mixing of genes and thus no intermediates. Where interbreeding does occur (mutts) you see an absorption of the extreme variations of the breeds back into a generic "mutt" dog mixture, and a loss of the more deleterious forms and less viable forms through natural selection.

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 245 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-23-2009 10:57 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 247 of 248 (504000)
03-23-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 10:14 PM


Although you are trying to imply that Darwin is wrong about speciation by connecting what he says to an absurd reduction (of your creation) of his ideas; perhaps surprisingly to you, you have not stated a case strong enough, that is absurd enough as to be false, to make what Darwin (and other biologists) posit impossible or untrue. I could imagine some weird place (a highly controlled robot planet zoo, for instance) that could actually accommodate the absurdities you give as examples. Nothing would have to break any physical laws.

The problem though is that our real world of today and the past isn't really set up at the foundation to support the kind of situation you describe. Basically your scenario can be summed up by asking the rhetorical question, "Why don't we find a series of losers in niches, occupying places that would have otherwise gone to winners?"

What do you think happens to animals that are not really making it? Do they stay around to be observed for thousands or millions of years?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 248 of 248 (504003)
03-23-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 10:14 PM


That's my question. If there are no limits, then why are there no "sliding scale" series at present?

You are going to have to define what you mean here by "sliding scale" versus what actual biological evolution shows.

Why is life all settled in niches instead of being so segregated?

Why is life all settled in niches instead of being so settled in niches? You don't make sense.

If Darwin was correct, there would be no NEED for a fossil record. There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.

Really? Have you read Darwin, and why he said - predicts - that there would be no living examples of transitional series? It's called natural selection, where the better fit forms squeeze out the old less fit forms.

There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.

Ring species would be one example, the effects you can get by selective breeding and reproductive isolation would be another example. The whole diversity of life into all the various niches is another example -- the complete example of species forming nested hierarchies of traits as they blend from one environment into another.

And I don't really mean one. I mean one under every rock. You'd be stepping on all kinds of transitional forms. You'd have a scaled "one" for breakfast and a feathered "one" for dinner. ...

Except that evolution is a process that occurs over generations, not mealtimes:

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

It does not occur in individuals, as each individual organism develops according the the genetic pattern it has inherited.

... We'd all learn about "Ring Species" cause they'd be all around us, rings of every size and shape. There'd be ring species in our back yard and others that are strung global. Microbiology would be an endless series of evolutionary rings. Kind of obvious, when you think about it for 30 seconds. Instead there are 2 or 3 limited examples set on stages with the horns sounding triumphant!

And the fact that there aren't, adequately demonstrates that your claim that there should be is false. Good. Now the question is, do you want to see whether it is your understanding that is false or evolution?

First off, we should define what is meant by "transitional" species or forms between species.

I'll go first:

A transitional species is one that shows traits intermediate between ancestral populations and more modern ones. They share some traits with all populations, some traits only with ancestral form and some traits only with the derived modern form/s.

Thus transitional species show the hereditary lineage from the original form through the intermediate form/s to the to the final form, as new traits are acquired that increase fitness, and old traits are discarded that no longer assist fitness.

Next we can ask why the intermediates aren't as viable as the later forms:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

quote:
Stabilizing, Directional, and Diversifying Selection

Under stabilizing selection, extreme varieties from both ends of the frequency distribution are eliminated.

Under directional selection, individuals at one end of the distribution of beak sizes do especially well, and so the frequency distribution of the trait in the subsequent generation is shifted from where it was in the parental generation (see Figure 6b).

Under diversifying (disruptive) selection, both extremes are favored at the expense of intermediate varieties (see Figure 6c).


Note that in every case selection favor one set of traits over others, thus you do not get an ever increasing variety of traits within a species.

Your turn.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ,

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : more clarity


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 243 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:14 PM Sky-Writing 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 © 2022