|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Because the evidence pointed that way, even in his day.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Except that the fossil record was clearly not laid down by any single event.
quote: Which clearly shows a pattern consistent with descent with modification rather than the introduction of de novo designs.
quote: Which is obviously myth.
quote: The "everyday record" shows descent with modification but it does not show any created kinds. Reality doesn't really seem to agree with creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Completely false. The role of natural selection in fixing alleles is a central part of evolutionary theory.
quote: It's not just theory it is fact.
quote: It's the standard theory of evolution as described - for instance in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: No, I mean the genetic diversity of species.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: So they stopped artificial practices that were hurting their stock. How does THAT help you ?
quote: Assuming that your ideas are correct just begs the question. And that's all you have here. Except this bit...
quote:...which is a strong indication that there is new variation there, creating the incompatibilities. quote: No. If you had actually thought about it you would know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That is what you hope however it is obviously not the case.
quote: 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: That's your opinion but the evidence is still against you. And your opinion hardly outweighs the evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024