Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 562 of 936 (807295)
05-02-2017 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dredge
05-02-2017 2:17 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
Maybe for a sane discussion you should start by getting the definitions right and listen to corrections if you don't ?
The theory of evolution is quite a large body of knowledge, but universal common descent strictly speaking is a tiny and largely insignificant detail. If you equate the one with the other then naturally you will get confused. The more so if you insist on sticking to the error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 2:17 AM Dredge has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 564 of 936 (807298)
05-02-2017 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by CRR
05-02-2017 3:28 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
You mean that it suits creationists because then creationists can falsely accuse their opponents of saying:
"Behold the Peppered Moth! That is an example of evolution. Hence we have proved that humans evolved from apes which evolved from LUCA."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:28 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 566 of 936 (807301)
05-02-2017 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by CRR
05-02-2017 3:40 AM


Re: Part of the problem?
For evolution itself - which has to refer to what happens - and understanding that we are talking about biology I would define it as the process by which populations (of biological organisms) change over time.
Now can you show someone ACTUALLY arguing that any instance of small-scale evolution occurring actually proves universal common ancestry ? Or even the evolution of humans from earlier ape species ? Or is it just the usual creationist smear routine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by CRR, posted 05-02-2017 3:40 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 647 of 936 (807841)
05-06-2017 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by CRR
05-06-2017 2:03 AM


Re: Where are we now?
To clarify for Dredge, Darwinian evolution involves common descent. However the extent of that common descent is identified by evidence, not required by the theory.
Thus, universal common descent is not an important part of the theory, simply a conclusion from the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 2:03 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 649 of 936 (807846)
05-06-2017 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by CRR
05-06-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Where are we now?
quote:
Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms.
Because the evidence pointed that way, even in his day.
quote:
So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory
But only because of the evidence. If the evidence pointed in a different direction - to a few rather than a single ancestral form - it would not make much difference to the theory at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 691 of 936 (810188)
05-25-2017 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by CRR
05-24-2017 11:52 PM


Re: the word Evolution?
quote:
[edit] I see in Message 545 that you say "No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory.", yet there are others in this thread who clearly do not agree with that.
I think you are confusing the definition with the theory. LUCA is a small part of the theory, but it is not a part of the definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by CRR, posted 05-24-2017 11:52 PM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 710 of 936 (810252)
05-26-2017 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by CRR
05-26-2017 2:08 AM


Re: the word Evolution?
quote:
from the fossil record, as mostly laid down during Noah's Flood,
Except that the fossil record was clearly not laid down by any single event.
quote:
from the genetic record, showing the common designer of all living things,
Which clearly shows a pattern consistent with descent with modification rather than the introduction of de novo designs.
quote:
from the historic record, as recorded in Genesis
Which is obviously myth.
quote:
and from everyday record of the life we observe, descent with modification within the created kinds.
The "everyday record" shows descent with modification but it does not show any created kinds.
Reality doesn't really seem to agree with creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by CRR, posted 05-26-2017 2:08 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 804 of 936 (813518)
06-28-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 803 by Faith
06-28-2017 8:50 AM


Re: The[n] we'll need to define macroevolution
quote:
The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, meaning to get a new population with new characteristics, is not recognized in the ToE.
Completely false. The role of natural selection in fixing alleles is a central part of evolutionary theory.
quote:
You keep theorizing about how more genetic diversity can be produced so that macroevolution can occur, but
It's not just theory it is fact.
quote:
1) this is NOT the ToE which thinks there's no stopping point at all,
It's the standard theory of evolution as described - for instance in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker
quote:
2) you couldn't get enough useful change in thousands of years to begin to suggest a transition from micro to macro. All mutations do is replace an allele in a given gene, so all you can EVER get is a new version of the trait governed by that particular gene -- and in most cases you don't even get that. What you get is at best a neutral mutation that doesn't change the phenotype, and at worst, of course, destruction of the gene itself. In any case mutations will never get you past the genomic parameters of the Kind.
That is your assumption and it completely ignores the actual biology. The interactions between genes and their products, gene duplication and the role of regulatory sequences for a start. And what on earth are these "genomic parameters of the Kind" that mutation can't get past ? When we can't even show that "Kinds" meaningfully exist it seems rather odd to be talking about their "genomic parameters" (if that even means anything)
quote:
The ToE has been proved wrong in so many ways it's astonishing to see how it just goes on limping along as if nothing had ever happened.
You don't get to be believed by making silly rants full of falsehoods or by abusing those who try to talk sense to you. In fact nothing of import has happened to disprove evolution - creationism is just bad religious apologetics rightfully rejected by science - and anyone who cares about the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 803 by Faith, posted 06-28-2017 8:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 826 of 936 (813621)
06-29-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
06-29-2017 10:50 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
What your argument misses is that overall diversity can remain constant - or rather fluctuating around a mean - even if your argument were entirely correct.
You also miss both the evidence and the theoretical considerations that destroy your argument but you've been ignoring those all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 10:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 836 of 936 (813634)
06-29-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 829 by Faith
06-29-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
quote:
If you mean by "overall diversity" the genetic diversity in the Kind as a whole, yes of course, and I point that out when I think of it.
No, I mean the genetic diversity of species.
quote:
My argument is about what happens as necessary result of evolutionary processes, selection and isolation in particular.
Which is exactly where my point comes in. Your claim of a necessary long-term decline is unsupported - and always has been. Ranting falsehoods is not going to change that.
quote:
Evolution is what requires reduction of genetic diversity.
It does not require an overall, long-term ongoing reduction in diversity. And you have never come up with a sound argument to the contrary.
quote:
Sorry I've missed nothing that would destroy my argument.
The fact that your only examples of "genetic depletion" are species that have undergone severe bottlenecks destroys your argument to give just one example. The fact that these bottlenecks have not produced new species and even the aggressive selection of artificial breeding has not hardly helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 11:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 844 of 936 (813645)
06-29-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
06-29-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
quote:
Breeding and ring species are excellent examples
Excellent examples of your errors. Your idea of evolution is based on a version of selective breeding so extreme that even real breeders don't follow it. Real breeders can and do incorporate new variations when they find them desirable. Real breeders have not produced the genetic incompatibilities that you assume are due to "genetic depletion". And how you think ring species help your case I have no idea.
You have no case. That is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 845 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 12:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 854 of 936 (813663)
06-29-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Faith
06-29-2017 12:16 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
quote:
Breeding has changed since they recognized the dangers of genetic depletion. They used to not worry about it so they could be as extreme as they wanted in selecting for the desired type. Now they incorporate genetic diversity to avoid the most drastic consequences.
So they stopped artificial practices that were hurting their stock. How does THAT help you ?
quote:
Ring species have to lose genetic diversity from population to population just as has to happen with developing breeds.
Assuming that your ideas are correct just begs the question. And that's all you have here.
Except this bit...
quote:
...genetically changed enough to be unable to interbreed with former populations.
...which is a strong indication that there is new variation there, creating the incompatibilities.
quote:
It blows the ToE to smithereens for anybody who is really thinking.
No. If you had actually thought about it you would know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 867 of 936 (813707)
06-30-2017 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 866 by Faith
06-29-2017 6:09 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
In reality it would take a long while to get rid of all the copies of the brown allele, because the black is dominant. Even if there isn't interbreeding with the brown population - and there probably is.
More importantly there can only be an overall decline in genetic diversity - even in a population of black mice - if there were multiple brown alleles. If there was only one allele at the start then ending up with one allele is not a decline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by Faith, posted 06-29-2017 6:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 876 of 936 (813823)
07-01-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by Faith
06-30-2017 11:21 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
This change only requires the - eventual - replacement of one allele. And the arrival of a number of different alleles for black fur - maintained by natural selection in the regions where it is beneficial - has increased the genetic diversity of the species.
Thus we do not need an ever-declining diversity. A fluctuating diversity, where new alleles are introduced by mutation and eventually replace the "originals" is quite sufficient. And the pocket mice are strong evidence that it is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 11:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 884 of 936 (813855)
07-01-2017 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
07-01-2017 9:52 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
quote:
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems
That is what you hope however it is obviously not the case.
quote:
Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind
As we see this attempt fails because the whole idea of "the boundary of the Kind" is meaningless. Oh, I suppose we could more accurately phrase it as "evolution which creationists reject" but that is somewhat subjective and not exactly useful to science.
quote:
no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point.
That's your opinion but the evidence is still against you. And your opinion hardly outweighs the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:52 AM Faith 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