|
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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
PaulK has a peculiarly excellent ability to misread me; the rest of you are rank amateurs by comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
faith writes:
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've answered this many times and have been answering it all along in this thread. I'm not asking for your coulda/woulda/shoulda speculations. Show us the experiments that have been done to demonstrate the barrier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
So there's still no possibility of any imperfection on your part?
PaulK has a peculiarly excellent ability to misread me; the rest of you are rank amateurs by comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Funny that you have yet to demonstrate that at all.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024