Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Imported weed diversification supports macro-evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 59 (298101)
03-25-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
03-25-2006 2:17 PM


i don't know about you, but this looks an awful lot like speciation and macro-evolution.
Well, to me it looks like "speciation" as usual, which is really just ordinary variation according to Mendelian principles of inheritance, the way we all differ from our parents: if a few of us started an isolated colony (which has happened unnumerable times in the history of the human race), we'd become an identifiable race, but still be humans.
You see it all the time in breeding programs. That's how you get new breeds of anything. In the wild it just takes something in the environment's favoring the proliferation of a new type.
Certainly nothing "macro" about it -- that would require it at the very least to stop being goatsbeard and become something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 2:17 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-25-2006 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 4:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 4:32 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 59 (298110)
03-25-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by kuresu
03-25-2006 4:32 PM


It aint that I don't understand, kuresu, it's that I don't accept the standard definitions, which are in the business of defining everything in evolutionist terms. I don't believe that inability to breed is any kind of definition of a new species in the macro sense, that's just an arbitrary meaningless marker of a variation that has deviated far from the parent population.
All that has occurred in this weed is everyday variation. And yes, it may be true that I don't understand how this particular weed does it, but Mendel worked with plants and nothing he said implies macro E.
Certainly you've got "a different goatsbeard," certainly, but it is still a goatsbeard, the same way a Great Dane is a different dog from a chihuahua and yet both are dogs.
I use "race" in the ordinary sense of the term. There are recognizable groups of people just as there are recognizable individuals, with peculiar traits that differentiate them from other groups, because they blend the traits of their limited group of ancestors. It's a perfectly useful concept.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 05:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 4:32 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 5:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 03-25-2006 5:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 59 (298119)
03-25-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kuresu
03-25-2006 5:08 PM


The only difference between Great Danes and Chihuahaua are which genes are expressed. The only difference between white, black, asian, indian, whatever is that there are varying amounts of melantonin (I think that's the skin color pigment) in these "races". They are not different kinds or species.
Um. There's a lot more difference in the races than just melatonin, all kinds of genetic differences, and why not, there are differences between parents and children, so how much more between groups that have been isolated for centuries and developed their own gene pool. It's exactly the same as between Great Danes and chihuahuas, that is, as you put it, "which genes are expressed." But it's more than that, because in any breed or race very often many genes of the species are simply no longer present at all.
If you don't accept the standard definitions, it would be pointless to debate with you because then all you have to say is
"I don't believe that, and since my definition is true you can't prove anything to me becasue I'll just change it so thay you'll never be right so that I can believe what I want and not accept the logical outcome of events"
Nice straw man there. Definitional differences are the sign of a paradigm clash. Not accepting the definitions means trying to explain one's different viewpoint but in the end it often does mean that the evo-creo debate simply founders on that issue. Can't be helped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 5:08 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 8:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 03-31-2006 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 59 (298135)
03-25-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
03-25-2006 8:10 PM


I don't care what you call them, call them tribes or families or whatever you want, it's no different from what happens in any population isolation phenomenon. Sheesh all this pickiness over the term "race." Call it a "species" then. The same degree of genetic specificity would be called that by the evos for any animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 8:10 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 9:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 3:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 59 (298136)
03-25-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kuresu
03-25-2006 8:33 PM


You also need to pay attention to the "reply" button at the bottom right of the message you are answering instead of hitting the "general reply" button which makes it hard to know whom you are addressing.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 08:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 8:33 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 59 (298151)
03-25-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by kuresu
03-25-2006 9:38 PM


Just how much genetic difference qualifies? Discussions about population genetics here tend to be pretty sloppy about specifying degree of change -- if a population of chipmunks gets isolated from another population completely enough and long enough to display recognizably different characteristics from the first (or in fact both develop differences due to a change in the frequency of alleles in both populations), that usually gets called "speciation." {abe: In fact, this is what happens with "ring species" -- just a bunch of them separating and changing into a number of identifiably different populations in one general geographical area}.
Isn't that what happens when human populations separate and isolate themselves? Over a few generations of inbreeding they develop recognizable characteristics as a group in exactly the same way.
Actually it's kind of amusing how everybody shies away from this obvious normal fact of population genetics when it comes to human beings.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 10:07 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 10:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 9:38 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 10:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 59 (298159)
03-25-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by kuresu
03-25-2006 10:17 PM


In the discussion about chipmunks that happened here, nothing was said about inability to crossbreed, but I believe something was mentioned about a lack of INTEREST in breeding with the other population.
But again, here I simply dispute the classification of species in terms of inability to breed. I think that's artificial. Inability to crossbreed is the natural result of enough reduction in genetic potential from a lot of selection pressure or population splits to make for genetic mismatches that prevent successful interbreeding. The result is an overall loss of genetic diversity rather than anything that looks like it could lead to further speciation. And sometimes it can't. Sometimes it gets so far out genetically that further genetic adaptation is impossible. Hence extinctions. And they are pretty common. Speciation ultimately tends to lead to extinction in a fallen world. Not to evolution.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 10:23 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 10:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 10:17 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 10:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 48 by DBlevins, posted 03-26-2006 8:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 59 (298195)
03-25-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kuresu
03-25-2006 10:48 PM


as far as I know, there is no fallen world in the scientific community.
Yes. Sad. They'd understand SO much if they just took the evidence all around them seriously, the death and disease they think are normal, that are really evidence of the fallen state of the world.
Extinctions do not happen becasue of reduced genetic variability.
Sometimes they do. There is special concern about extinction in the case of those species that have such depleted genetic capacity, because of their inability to adapt.
Since life has been on earth for about 3.5 billion years, I would guess that there should be no genetic diversity if your case exists.
That is true, there wouldn't be. Evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old.
Species go extinct because they cannot adapt quickly enough to changing pressures.
Yes, and this is either because the circumstances would be lethal no matter what, or because they haven't the genetic diversity to adapt.
The dinos went extinct because they could not adapt quickly enough to survive the drastically new climate.
So goes the story. But the dinos are often found all jumbled up in fossil beds in a way that suggests they were washed there by a massive amount of water.
The tiny mammals, having endothermy and being capable of surviving in the new climate found a pretty empty world to explore.
So goes the interpretation. A likely story.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 11:52 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 11:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2006 10:48 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 12:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 59 (298219)
03-26-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
03-26-2006 12:03 AM


I think the view of fallen nature that we understand now is not what they were working with in the early days of science. From what I've seen they had some very strange ideas about how Biblical truth played out in the world, and we are a lot clearer about it now for some reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 12:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 59 (298290)
03-26-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mark24
03-26-2006 3:54 AM


There is more genetic difference within races than between them. There is no biological rationale for race.
This is just too preciously politically correct, and missing the whole point. Is or is it not the very same process of population genetics that has produced the human "races," no matter what you think of the term, and no matter how much genetic diversity still exists within them, that leads to speciation in animals, produces "ring species" for instance? I'm talking about something OBSERVABLE. One can usually tell a Norwegian from an Italian, an Arab from a Mongolian. Sheesh. And there are even recognizable differences in general appearance between members of isolated tribes who are nevertheless related.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 11:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 3:54 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 03-26-2006 12:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 1:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 2:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 42 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 5:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 6:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 59 (298328)
03-26-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
03-26-2006 12:09 PM


Unfortunately I forget where this subtopic started, but the DNA picture is not the point. I'm talking about the OBSERVABLE differences from one isolated population to another based on the principles of population genetics. That is, there are lots n lots of different groups of human beings that have developed their own genetic picture that differentiates them from the others, mostly because of migration.
Moose, this IS on the topic of the weed. It's about the normal processes of variation, how you get a different type of something.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 01:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 03-26-2006 12:09 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 59 (298333)
03-26-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
03-26-2006 1:12 PM


Sure, we would expect human evolution in varied remote geographies to result in semi-seperated populations of human beings identifiable by certain physical traits.
Well, gee, thanks for acknowledging that simple point finally.
But the cultural concept of "race", which conflates genetics, ethnicity, religion, and a host of other biases, has really no basis in physical reality.
Just the usual political correctness. Who cares. You're getting all hung up on a term. Gotta get all that political baggage into it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 1:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 2:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 59 (298417)
03-26-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
03-26-2006 6:33 PM


Irrelevant. Where did I say I personally could recognize all the different races and tribes of humanity any more than I could recognize the five different races and tribes of goatsbeard?
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 08:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 6:33 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 8:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 03-27-2006 3:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 59 (298418)
03-26-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
03-26-2006 5:50 PM


Where did I say I could recognize all the tribes of humanity?
And where did I say I could recognize if a tribe recombined with another tribe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 5:50 PM nator has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 59 (298424)
03-26-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
03-26-2006 8:21 PM


Tribes in their tribal territory are usually recognizable. If I wasn't clear, sorry, but how could I have meant anything else? Just as any genetic population may recombine and change its racial character, so can humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 8:21 PM nator 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