|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Well that's certainly on topic. A nice demonstration of what IS wrong with creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Species are not mere "breeds' or "varieties". Breeds and varieties are derived FROM species by human breeding efforts and need to be artificially maintained by those efforts.
quote: The evidence says that you are wrong. I know that you dismiss both the evidence and expert opinion (do we need you review your statements on expert opinions here ?) but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is against you - and all the lies and slander you can muster won't outweigh that in the minds of rational people.
quote: As I have pointed out evolution does NOT act like human breeders trying to maintain a breed. Your assumption to the contrary is merely an assumption and one with no foundation in evolutionary theory. Evolution cares nothing about some abstract idea of the "breed".
quote: Obviously mutations MUST increase genetic diversity at the level of the genome - especially when variation is low - and there is no good reason to think that they cannot produce new phenotypic traits either (in fact we know that they can). (And don't forget that the standard YEC view that whole taxonomic families were formed from a population of only TWO individuals ! Obviously that isn't possible in your view)
quote: And you are wrong. Certainly you have never come up with an argument other than the assumption that evolution somehow "wants" to prevent the addition of diversity.
quote: And the reason they have to face this is because of short-term concerns relating to reduced and fragmented populations, exactly in line with evolutionary theory. There is no reason to believe that genetic diversity could not recover in the long term, if the species survived that long (cheetahs are recovering, although the more recent bottleneck was a setback - and before you reflexively disagree it is only because of the increases in genetic diversity at the level of the genome that we can detect the timing of the bottlenecks - or that the second even occurred)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Of course this is all wrong. We CAN test ideas about what happened in the past. For instance evolutionary theory predicted that we would find transitional fossils - and we did.
quote: However your argument relies on an assumption - a big assumption that you have no evidence for. The assumption that diversity cannot recover. We know that diversity can and does increase at the level of the genome. We have every reason to believe that the same applies at the level of the phenotype - especially given the timescales involved. We also know by your own admission that your theory is not compatible with an old Earth and old life - and we know that the Earth and life on it have been around for a very long period of time. So there is no rational reason to accept your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Sure, Faith, When your Lord, Satan, turns up we'll all realise that we should have been worshipping you and your lies all along. Just keep on deluding yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: On the contrary, Darwin never gave any such estimate. And even Kurt Wise - that rarity, a YEC palaeontologist - has admitted that they are significant evidence for evolution. The transitionals we find do not merely share features found in other species (and if they did they would NOT be expected follow the pattern predicted by evolution!). They link major groups - such as birds and dinosaurs. The truth is no delusion.
quote: As I have pointed out this is simply not true. There is no such purpose. There is no breeder or other force to enforce such a purpose. There is not even a problem with the outcome - adding new variations not found in the parent species does not make a new species any less a species. The idea is absurd. Your problem is not that your idea has not been seriously considered. It is that it HAS been considered - and found wanting.
quote: An increase in phenotypic diversity is caused by a REDUCTION in genetic diversity ? That does not make sense. Dogs as a whole have great phenotypic diversity but that involves the genetic diversity of the whole species, not that of a single breed.
quote: And even in Darwin's day it was far better supported than your opinions. And we have discovered much since then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It looks more like YOU failed to get what I was saying. I was talking about an increase in the number of phenotypic variations found within a population. It doesn't make sense that reducing genetic variation would cause that.
quote: But I'm not talking about "getting a new phenotype" or a "new breed". I am talking about within-species phenotypic variation increasing, mainly because you refuse to accept variations in gene sequences as increases in genetic variation.
quote: In other words you are talking about a REDUCTION in phenotypic variation not an INCREASE. I think that adequately demonstrates which of us is "NOT getting" it. We can dispense with the next paragraph since it simply repeats the same error.
quote: But increasing genetic diversity doesn't interfere with getting new species. Once the species has formed of course it can add new variations without losing the distinctive features we use to identify it (and if a few such features were lost they would simply be discounted as diagnostic features for identifying that species - so even that is not a problem).
quote: Gene flow from the parent species is a potential problem (which is why reproductive isolation is an important criterion for identifying species). An incipient species could be reabsorbed into the parent species. But once it is distinct with reproductive isolation established that cannot happen. The rest of your argument is just false. New variations created by mutation AFTER a new species has formed do not in any way threaten its existence as a species.
quote: You keep making that claim but you've never offered any reason to believe it. And as I say it's obviously false. Only reversion to the parental species' phenotype would "defeat" evolution and adding variations not found in the parental population will obviously not do that. To point to just one example, the short legs of dachshunds do not make them wolves rather than dogs.
quote: If your opinion was sufficient to settle an argument then you wouldn't need your argument in the first place. So you need more than your opinion that adding new variations to a newly-formed species somehow makes it less of a species. It is obviously absurd to say that the appearance of a new variation not found in the parent species represents a reversion to the parent species. And yet, that is what your argument seems to amount to. Let's boil it down to that question: We have a new species. A new phenotypic variation appears in that species - it does not cause any of the features that distinguish the new species from it's parent species to be lost. It is not found in the parent species at all. How does this make the new species any less a species ? Until you can give an answer to that question that makes sense your argument fails.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Just to be really clear you are claiming that increased genetic variation measured at the level of the phenotype is produced by reduced genetic variation ? Because if you aren't you're the one failing to understand the point.
quote: No, I won't grant that. Changing the frequencies of genes won't change the combinations possible so without the addition of new genetic variations the possible range of phenotype so remains the same. At most you can produce phenotypes that would be incredibly unlikely given the original gene frequencies.
quote: This seems to be nonsense. A "new population" is a population so the idea that I couldn't mean that just because I used the word "population" is so obviously silly that it needs no further comment. All species display a range of phenotypic variation, and we can get distinct subspecies without absolute reproductive isolation.
quote: Speciation is, as you know, macroevolution in the scientific use of the term. But again you need to produce an argument that shows that genetic diversity cannot increase after the new species has formed.
quote: Of course I am talking about new phenotypic variations because that's the point I am making. And the only reason I am talking about phenotype is that you apparently won't accept changes measured at the level of genotype.
quote: Actually it IS evolution - microevolution. And I must say that not thinking about a point that could defeat your argument is hardly a good way to answer it.
quote: The trouble with this argument is that it fails to establish an overall trend. If the new species can increase in genetic diversity to the same level as the parent species there is no need for a long-term overall decline - just a pattern of peaks and troughs. By not considering increases in genetic diversity you missed this obvious and serious problem in your argument.
quote: Obviously you are talking about reduced phenotypic VARIATION.
quote: But THAT population has reduced phenotypic variation. That's the whole point of your argument. So you're the one not getting it.
quote: No you've expressed it clearly enough. You just haven't offered any explanation of how it could possibly be true.
quote: No, I'm taking a BROADER view than you. Where you only think about soeciation I am thinking about what happens to the population in the periods between speciation events as well - which is a considerable majority of the lifespan of a successful species.
quote: There are no "crucially defining features" of a wild species. There are only the features we use to identify a species and if members if a species lack one or more if those traits we were wrong to regard them as reliable identifiers in the first place. And you are even more wrong about evolution. Evolutionary theory never says that the within-species level of genetic variation - which is what you are talking about in your argument - must increase. Yes if you add the genetic variations in zebras to those in fish you will find a lot more than in any single species but your argument says nothing to that could get in the way of that. And simply assuming that the increases in genetic variation cannot balance the losses is just an assumption.
quote: You say that we get no "blurring" but what does that mean ? You can't imagine that every member of a species is identical to the others in phenotype or genotype. But what is this "blurring" other than variation within the species ?
quote: Then you don't understand your own argument.
quote: In other words you are just making assumptions. At the level of the genotype most mutations are neutral anyway. Likely a lot of phenotypic mutations are neutral too. And, of course, natural selection weighs in to spread beneficial mutations and remove deleterious mutations. I've made this point before but it seems I must make it again. Assuming that numbers you don't know happen to favour your view is not an argument. It's just an assumption.
quote: But it is your argument. You even used it in this post:
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Of course the paradigm clash here is not about understanding (except in the broader sense that the creationist paradigm favours dogma over understanding). The problem is that your argument has a serious hole in it, and has from the start. It is necessary for your argument that any increases in diversity are insufficient to raise a new species to the level of diversity found in modern species. But you've found no argument for that except the one that it somehow interferes with the formation of "species" - but you cannot offer any reason why. Saying that your argument isn't understood just because we see the obvious problem - a problem that has devilled all the forms of your argument so you can hardly be unaware of it - is not a sensible response. Now in the creationist paradigm arguments are judged by conclusions. not quality. Obviously creationists will tend to be deceived by your argument because they won't bother to understand it. Lies and slander against evolution and evolutionists are plusses as well so obviously creationists will be very willing to accept your argument. And indeed we see that creationists obviously DO accept bad arguments like "the population argument" or the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Arguments which do not stand up to examination. Occasionally a more critical creationist will make an attempt at intellectual honesty, For instance Answers in Genesis once produced a list of arguments which they felt weren't good enough to use - and they were blasted by Kent Hovind for doing so. Glen Morton ran into similar problems pointing out problems in Flood Geology. And Kurt Wise's assessment of transitional fossils seems to have fallen through the cracks, too. My generous assessment of the creationist paradigm is that it is based on prejudice and a disregard for the truth. Something you've quite adequately demonstrated in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It doesn't seem to be a misstatement. If the diversity of species is - in the long run - fixed at the current level then there is no inevitable decline in diversity.
quote: It certainly is a hole in your argument - and if it were simply a matter of explaining it you wouldn't be offering a completely new argument here,
quote: There's a lot to disagree with there. But the fatal flaw is that is doesn't matter if it is "of value" or not. What matters is whether it HAPPENS to a degree sufficient to prevent the inevitable decline you propose in your argument. And, as I pointed out above this has no relation to your assertion that new variations would somehow interfere with speciation! which you used before.
quote: But that reduction is a reduction from the full diversity found in the parent species at the time of the split. This is why gains in diversity are a problem for you - the mere fact of their existence, combined with what we know of the timescales strongly suggests that genetic diversity is,overall, in a state of dynamic equilibrium, oscillating about a mean rather than inevitable declining.
quote: As I said above it's a matter of looking at the bigger picture to consider the overall trend in diversity. Just looking at speciation will mislead you badly because you are ignoring so much.
quote: Of course the appearance and spread of new alleles is also microevolution. And it is essential to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, for instance. If such a common example of microevolution depends on the appearance of new variations, obviously your idea that they "have no value" is wrong from the perspective of evolution. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Dictionaries record the way that words are used. And anybody with any understanding of genetics would understand that that IS how the word "mutation" is used in genetics. Even creationists are happy to use that definition.
quote: I think that fact that is IS so has more to do with it....
quote: No. The fact is that these things exist and people use the word "mutation" to describe them. There is no special "true" meaning of the word "mutation" to contradict it.
quote: Obviously not. The fact that a word is used to describe something is not in any way magic. It is your objections which seem to be founded on the idea of "word magic".
quote: Well that doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously truth and reality DO have rather a lot to do with it. The truth and reality that that is how the word is used to describe things that are known to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I think that we are all satisfied that you proved that there is something seriously wrong with you in those rants,
quote: Of course the problem with that argument is - and always has been - that it is necessary to also account for increases in diversity. Indeed, the mere existence of any increases in diversity is a challenge. When there are processes acting in opposite directions the final state is almost always a dynamic equilibrium. Indeed, given that we can justifiably conclude that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years the reasonable position is that overall that balance has been achieved (although human activities may be driving diversity down in many species). You may object that you do not accept the timescales, but that would be a different argument altogether, and we are certainly entitled to accept solidly established scientific facts,
quote: Mutations represent an increase in diversity and as I point out above that is a serious challenge to your argument. I guess that in your world 5 + 3 - 3 = 2. Because that is essentially what you are saying. In the real world it is possible for an increase to counter a decrease and just insisting that it is absolutely impossible is silly,
quote: A decrease followed by an increase followed by a decrease is different from a decrease followed only by more decreases. That is not a difficult concept. As I pointed out the first time I you trotted out this argument it is necessary to take the increases into consideration. Simply trying to hand wave them away as irrelevant is an obvious falsehood,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I think that this is Faith demonstrating that there is something wrong with her again.
If decreasing genetic diversity increased phenotypic diversity the most phenotypically diverse population would be genetically identical. It's so obviously absurd if you think about it that it's hard to see how any sensible person could suggest it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Maybe it is possible to maximise phenotypic change by reducing genetic diversity, but why should that be relevant ? There's no drive to maximise differences in phenotype, the only drive is to maximise fitness through selection And one important difference between natural selection and breeders is that while breeders can choose to strongly select for recessive genes without any great difficulty, recessive alleles are much less affected by natural selection than dominant alleles. This is why genetic diseases are recessive.
quote: As I've pointed out again and again we don't need beneficial mutations to restore genetic diversity, neutral mutations are fine. Two distinct alleles are still distinct even if neither confers a selective advantage over the other. This should be obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the concept of "diversity". The large population isn't an issue either - successful species will have large populations (that's what you miss by only looking at speciation). So, we have a large population, a long period of time and neutral mutations ARE helpful. It seems that you DO need a mechanism to stop mutations from increasing genetic diversity - because in this scenario it WILL happen. So we're back again to the hole in your argument that has been obvious from the beginning. You've spent years trying to patch it and you still haven't come up with a working answer. Isn't it time to retire the argument until you actually have an answer that isn't obviously false ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Mindspawn thinks that evidence of a bottleneck - more severe than that proposed for speciation - would be practically eliminated in 4500 years.
The scientists have not said anything about a lack of bottlenecks 4500 years ago. These are difficult to detect because over huge populations many mutations develop over 4500 years.
Message 727 You think that a million years wouldn't be enough. And to be honest, I think that YECs in general would be far more likely to agree with mindspawn than you. How can you get many species from just one single pair without the bottleneck being obvious ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It's not the BIble that they worship, its their political and religious leaders. They're quite happy to distort the Bible to fit their doctrines. Biblical inerrancy REQUIRES it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024