Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 331 of 457 (708485)
10-10-2013 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Tangle
10-10-2013 9:46 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
My money though is not on mutation to create the jaw and digestive tract changes - including the ability trap bacteria to break down cellulose - it seems far more likely to be a genetic trait from an earlier population has popped back up because the environment suits it.
Yes, except I don't think the environment NEEDS to suit it any more than by providing some average amount of vegetation; greater abundance of vegetation doesn't seem to be necessary for the larger head and jaw to be preserved. Seems to me the larger jaw might lead the lizards to prefer the vegetation over the insects, but I can't see "selection pressure" in the vegetation itself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 9:46 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 332 of 457 (708486)
10-10-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by ringo
10-10-2013 2:30 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
PaulK has a peculiarly excellent ability to misread me; the rest of you are rank amateurs by comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 10-10-2013 2:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by ringo, posted 10-10-2013 2:38 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 333 of 457 (708487)
10-10-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:29 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
faith writes:
I've answered this many times and have been answering it all along in this thread.
Don't be shy about repeating yourself. What's the specific barrier that prevents all possible macroevolution? (And why is it that you know about it but the biologists don't?)
I'm not asking for your coulda/woulda/shoulda speculations. Show us the experiments that have been done to demonstrate the barrier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 334 of 457 (708488)
10-10-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:36 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
PaulK has a peculiarly excellent ability to misread me; the rest of you are rank amateurs by comparison.
So there's still no possibility of any imperfection on your part?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:40 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 335 of 457 (708489)
10-10-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by ringo
10-10-2013 2:38 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
I'm sure there are many ways my argument could be improved, but all I have is what I have and I'm doing the best I can with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by ringo, posted 10-10-2013 2:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 10-10-2013 2:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 339 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 3:11 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 336 of 457 (708490)
10-10-2013 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:40 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
I'm sure there are many ways my argument could be improved, but all I have is what I have and I'm doing the best I can with it.
The problem is that you're doing very badly and you're blaming everybody but yourself. And you have the gall to call us arrogant. You don't just have a beam in your eye; you have a house in your eye and you're rapidly buildng it into a town.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 337 of 457 (708492)
10-10-2013 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Tangle
10-10-2013 9:46 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith tho' seem to think that the mere act of separation is enough to create what she calls a variety - which is daft; there needs to be a mechanic for a change which, as we know is drift or mutation and a mechanic to direct the change, which we know is selection.
Why the idea that change comes about from changed allele frequencies is daft is beyond me. Drift or mutation can be agents of change but new allele frequencies are a guaranteed change agent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 9:46 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Percy, posted 10-11-2013 7:39 AM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 338 of 457 (708496)
10-10-2013 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:25 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
quote:
You have the most amazing talent for misreading me.
Funny that you have yet to demonstrate that at all.
quote:
My view of migration is that a subpopulation splits off from the mother population and moves some distance away where in reproductive isolation it inbreeds among itself. There IS no "local population" in my scenario, the migrating subpopulation has found its own home for itself in which by inbreeding among its individuals for some number of generations it produces its own new characteristics and becomes a new variety or race or "species" or "breed." All based on its own genes/alleles.
The amusing thing is that I was reporting the description of migration on the Berkeley site. Which presumably reports how the term is used in evolutionary science. YOUR usage isn't even a mechanism of change. In itself it is just a form of geographic isolation of a small population - and that small population and lack of gene flow with the larger population make genetic drift stronger - but drift is the mechanism of change there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 339 of 457 (708498)
10-10-2013 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:40 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
quote:
I'm sure there are many ways my argument could be improved, but all I have is what I have and I'm doing the best I can with it.
Evidenced estimates of the loss and gain of genetic diversity over the full lifespan of a species would be a major improvement. In fact it's hard to see how your argument can possibly work without them.
Showing proper humility about the limitations and weaknesses of your argument would be another.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 3:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 340 of 457 (708501)
10-10-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by PaulK
10-10-2013 3:11 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
I am not in a position to judge the weaknesses and limitations of my argument because so far it's been just about impossible to get across to anyone just what my argument IS, so that the answers I get back are usually not helpful, a lot of accusations of being wrong about things that seem to be mostly misreadings of what I'm trying to say.
As for correcting your misreading I don't have any idea where you got it so I'm not in a position to correct it. The very idea that I COULD have been saying what you think is so bizarre anyway it seems hopeless to try to correct someone who is willing to think it.
Now I'm finally getting some idea of what is in my opponents' minds that needs to be taken into account in order to have a better chance of getting my argument across. The expectation that selection is what drives all changes seems now to be a big factor, with Percy's last few posts and now Tangle's. There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well. Evolution IS defined as change in gene {allele} frequencies but it's also defined other ways.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 3:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 4:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 342 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2013 4:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 4:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 355 by Percy, posted 10-11-2013 8:01 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 341 of 457 (708505)
10-10-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
10-10-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
quote:
I am not in a position to judge the weaknesses and limitations of my argument because so far it's been just about impossible to get across to anyone just what my argument IS, so that the answers I get back are usually not helpful, a lot of accusations of being wrong about things that seem to be mostly misreadings of what I'm trying to say.
The argument seems to be simple enough. Leaving out various minor problems with it it can be summaries as:
1) Speciation reduces genetic diversity
2) Genetic diversity inevitably decreases
3) Evolution stops when genetic diversity runs out.
4) Genetic diversity will inevitably run out and evolution would stop long before the timescales shown by geology and palaeontology
5) Therefore the theory of evolution is false.
There are two big problems.
First, you haven't made a good argument for 2).
Second the evidence that we do have is strongly against it - showing that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years despite a number of mass extinctions.
Now if there's anything significantly wrong in that summary please explain it.
Now I admit that nobody was able to make sense of your argument that increasing diversity would be a problem because it "blurred" the new species. But that was because you could never explain why such "blurring" WAS a problem - and quite frankly it's pretty obvious that you didn't know.
quote:
Now I'm finally getting some idea of what is in my opponents' minds that needs to be taken into account in order to have a better chance of getting my argument across.
I told you years ago that you needed to properly account for the increases and decreases in diversity and show that diversity DID inevitably decline. And I've said it again, since. So how can you say that you didn't know it ?
quote:
The expectation that selection is what drives all changes seems now to be a big factor, with Percy's last few posts and now Tangle's. There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well. Evolution IS defined as change in gene {allele} frequencies but it's also defined other ways.
Nope. You need to show that diversity inevitably declines in the long term. Show that the losses must be greater than the increases. That's it. It's the central claim of your argument so how you can imagine that you don't have to support it is completely baffling. What you've written above is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 3:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 342 of 457 (708510)
10-10-2013 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
10-10-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
I am not in a position to judge the weaknesses and limitations of my argument because so far it's been just about impossible to get across to anyone just what my argument IS
That's because your argument is a hodgepodge of confused misunderstanding and wishful thinking.
a lot of accusations of being wrong about things that seem to be mostly misreadings of what I'm trying to say.
You really are blatantly wrong, it just seems that way to you because there's something wrong with you. You're being blinded by your religious zeal.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 3:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 343 of 457 (708513)
10-10-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
10-10-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
The expectation that selection is what drives all changes seems now to be a big factor, with Percy's last few posts and now Tangle's.
For God's sake Faith, evolution by descent with modification is the first plank of Darwin's original theory but it was made even more extraordinary because Darwin went on to tell us how he thought it worked - by NATURAL SELECTION.
His book was called:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well.
Hidden! It's one of the most famous ideas in science and it's been around for 150 years. It changed the world.
How on earth do you have the brass balls to discuss evolutionary theory without knowing or understanding the absolute basics?
Evolution IS defined as change in gene {allele} frequencies but it's also defined other ways.
You wouldn't know what an allele was if it bit you on the arse.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 6:43 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 344 of 457 (708525)
10-10-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
10-10-2013 4:47 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Look, people are always saying Darwin has been transcended. (that's when a Creationist is the one quoting Darwin of course.) Mutations for one thing are THE change factor now. Not that Natural Selection has gone away and I've never denied it, ever, in fact I've kept including it as a change factor all along. It's just that many other concepts have entered into the theory since Darwin, and a big one is the population genetics understanding of evolution coming about through change in gene/allele frequencies.
So don't get so uppity about what I know and don't know. I'm emphasizing change in allele frequencies and I've been arguing all along for it as the biggest change factor, caused by population splits alone, and I've ALWAYS included Natural Selection as one of the ways reproductive isolation is brought about, which is THE way change occurs, NS being one version of it, according to my argument.
I've been expecting everybody at least to know that change in allele frequencies is A change factor, and until now NOBODY said uh uh, Selection is the big change factor. Mutations mutations mutations has been the theme song. I could have addressed NS months ago, years ago, if it had been made THE issue as it appears to be now.
And it turns out you all even deny change in allele frequencies as any kind of driving element. You mentioned drift and mutations, PERIOD and treated the very idea of change without those or Selection as IMPOSSIBLE and even DAFT. Percy absolutely denies change without Selection.
This is not MY problem, sorry.
Evolution by descent with modification is STILL the basic plank and that plank is assumed in my argument. Change (modification; new phenotypes) occurs down the generations ("descent"), but I think NS is only one not very typical way it occurs, WHICH I'VE SAID over and over. CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCIES is THE way change occurs, the way modification is brought about, the way new phenotypes are brought about. Natural Selection is one way allele frequencies change because it's one way a new subpopulation is created.
Subpopulations are often smaller than the original population and when they are then we have the trend to decreased genetic diversity that shows that evolution has a stopping point. Even if you add in mutations this trend is not affected. Once Natural Selection or any other "mechanism of change" that brings about a new subpopulation kicks in then you have the trend to reduced genetic diversity and it juust swallows up your mutations.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 4:47 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by AZPaul3, posted 10-10-2013 7:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 346 by AZPaul3, posted 10-10-2013 7:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 352 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2013 2:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 357 by Percy, posted 10-11-2013 8:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 345 of 457 (708528)
10-10-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Faith
10-10-2013 6:43 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
You mentioned drift and mutations, PERIOD and treated the very idea of change without those or Selection as IMPOSSIBLE and even DAFT.
Then you misunderstand what everyone has been trying to tell you for years now. Yes, allele frequency is an agent of change. The different forms of selection are agents of change since they change allele frequency. Mutation of DNA into new alleles is an agent of change since they change allele frequency . Drift is an agent of change since they change allele frequency. And more and more we are realizing that evo-devo and epigenetics are agents of change since they change not only allele frequency but allele expression.
None of these are solely exclusive.
Where you go off the reservation is your intransigence in believing that present alleles are the only ones that will ever be. This is pure religious bull with everyone trying to give you examples of where the frequency of present alleles is not the only factor involved. So you confuse this with their saying that allele frequency is not an agent of change. It is. But it is not the only agent of change. There are others including the formation of new never before seen alleles.
In the end, yes, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. But there are different mechanisms that cause this frequency change from selection thru new alleles and more.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 6:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 7:28 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024