Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 369 of 457 (708640)
10-11-2013 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
10-11-2013 1:17 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
quote:
I think you mean "generating genetic variability or diversity," not "variations," since it is the selective and isolating processes that generate new varieties or races or "species" etc
You are wrong in more than one way here. First you are wrong to see a distinction between adding variations and adding variability. Second, isolation itself does not do anything to generate new species and races, it is more a block on processes that would stop it (primarily gene flow). And thirdly - my point - without the addition of new variations, selection and drift - the processes which do change populations - would run out of material.
quote:
Thank you. Now you need to admit that this happens at least in SOME situations in the wild.
No need to thank me, since I'm saying nothing new at all. In principle it could happen, but I'm not aware of any cases of extreme selection. In the cases of cheetah and the elephant seal there was no shaping by selection that we know of, just near-extinction.
quote:
For the rest I realize I'll have to make the case better that it also occurs wherever you are getting new varieties since that's the main point of contention.
If you intend to claim that the culling associated with speciation is extreme as that associated with the creation of a new domestic variety it is not a case of making a BETTER case, since you have not made any case at all for that.
quote:
But it nevertheless provides the principle I have in mind, which I'm arguing operates wherever new varieties are being developed at a much slower and less conspicuous rate. (But slower in decades, not millennia or millions of years, and culling is still going to overwhelm the mutations at that rate).
Even Steven Jay Gould's "rapid" speciation was estimated as taking centuries in a typical case, so yes, you will have to make a case for it happening so quickly. (And, if I recall correctly - it stuck with me because it seemed counter-intuitive - the greatest rates of evolutionary change are associated with weak selection, not strong. Something else that you will have to consider).
And then again you also have to deal with the long periods of time - hundreds of millennia - between speciations. And no objecting that the time is not so long, because if you could show THAT your whole argument would be redundant.
quote:
Why, when all that happens to those mutations is that they become part of the breed or not, and the breed is still characterized by very small genetic diversity?
Because they ADD to the genetic diversity of the incipient species - contradicting your assumption that the genetic diversity must stay low.
quote:
If mutations DO add alleles or anything that gets passed on, then they get treated exactly as alleles get treated when selection and isolation create small subpopulations by culling individuals from it.
Most of them will arrive when the population is large and there is relatively little culling.
quote:
You've got your new trait (supposedly) but it's locked into a population of less genetic diversity.
So we have an increase in the diversity of the population. You may wish to ignore that fact but that does not save your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 384 of 457 (708708)
10-12-2013 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
10-12-2013 2:25 PM


Re: Selection does lead to reduced genetic diversity
quote:
And in the case of Natural Selection it ought to be easy to see why mutations that alter the new adaptive picture only "blur" it and lose the new variety that's been developed. Losing the adaptive alleles has to be a step backward, an overall loss for the creature as well as a loss for the whole idea of evolution in the end. Do you want your adapted creature or not?
It should also be easy to see that mutations don't need to alter that adaptive picture at all, and don't have to alter it in a way that seriously disadvantages the traits already being selected for. They certainly don't have to cause any adaptive alleles to be lost from the population entirely - in fact that would be very, very unlikely (it wouldn't be common even for single individuals to lose an adaptive allele and it wouldn't matter much if it did happen). And besides evolution expects failures as well as successes, so even if it did happen on very rare occasions it wouldn't be a problem.
So you,re really going to have to stop being vague explain what you mean, because I can't come up with any interpretation that would be a plausible problem for evolution at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 10-12-2013 2:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 10-12-2013 3:25 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 386 of 457 (708711)
10-12-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
10-12-2013 3:25 PM


Re: Selection does lead to reduced genetic diversity
quote:
HOWEVER, evolution supposedly builds on established new "species" does it not? Isn't that the whole point of Natural Selection, that it supposedly can ultimately bring about a new species that can be a stepping stone to further speciation? And on and on and on out to something entirely NOT that same species at all but something new? We have to get that entire evolutionary genealogical tree into the picture here don't we?
And that's why evolution needs a source of new variations.
quote:
So if you're constantly starting and stopping the process that produces these varieties -- starting with new varieties built on less genetic diversity, stopping with mutations that increase the genetic diversity -- where is evolution finally?
There is no "stopping and starting". Your question makes no sense at all. I've told you that adaptive evolution is the interaction of mutation and selection - what you are describing as an absence of evolution IS evolution.
quote:
And keep in mind that you all want to answer Creationists who insist that microevolution occurs but not macroevolution, by saying that there is nothing to stop the one from going on to the other, as if its all a matter of addition, so if you are now acknowledging that the evolutionary processes that bring about new varieties do in fact overall reduce genetic diversity that OUGHT to be a BIG DEAL, and not something to just run on past as if it's meaningless. It effectively answers the constant refrain about there being no barrier to macroevolution.
But it isn't a big deal because it DOESN'T even address the issue. Now remember you are talking about a scientific debate using the scientific terms and many YECs gave no problem with the scientific form of macroevolution anyway - in fact they INSIST that it has happened. And it isn't even a big deal for your argument either. Reality isn't the way that you think it "SHOULD" be.
quote:
If NS and all the other natural processes that bring about new varieties or species by changing allele frequencies actually in the long run bring about sufficiently reduced genetic diversity to interfere with further variation or speciation, then you've got less rather than more ability to evolve.
Which is why a process that adds new variations is NOT a problem for evolution. It is NECESSARY for ongoing evolution. Your own argument SAYS so!
quote:
So of course again now you want to bring in mutations to save the day. I've been struggling to say how they can't although it's intuitively obvious to me that they can't.
I have no idea how it can be obvious to you. It is intuitively obvious that increases in diversity can offset decreases and I believe that is obvious to you, to. So you need a reason specific to this case and quite frankly you haven't offered anything that cones close to explaining such a reason.
quote:
But I'd start here again with reminding you that IF you see what I mean about how phenotypic variation, at least if brought about through a relatively small subpopulation, MUST be built upon reduced genetic diversity and if further subdivisions should occur the effect will only increase until you have no ability to vary further, THAT should be acknowledged here. I've been working hard to get that much across.
Only if you have no source of new variations. As I've been pointing out for years now.
quote:
You'd also have to consider the huge probability that these changes do NOT take "deep time" to accomplish. Let that video of Dawkins about the lizards on Pod Mrcaru be the evidence for that. If lizards can do it in 37 years there is no reason any given population in a ring species needs to take any longer, or any new "species" whatever, except those developed from much larger founding populations, and that is only going to add hundreds of years at the most for all the new allele frequencies to work through it generation by generation.
If the lizards did it your way which is far from proven. But the evidence for deep time hardly relies in the time required for speciation. Even Darwin noted that species were stable for a very large proportion of their existence.
quote:
And IF you take that seriously then you also have to consider that mutations are not going to occur frequently enough anyway to make the changes you are hoping they might make.
No, I don't since the large majority of the mutations will occur in the long period where the species is not undergoing speciation - as I have said earlier in this thread. Both the time factor and the factor of population size make this inevitable. Shrink the time required for speciation all you like, it makes no difference to this issue.
ABE: Because of this the vast majority of the mutations we are talking about cannot interfere with speciation - because they do not enter the population until speciation has occurred. There's a lot more to be said against the idea of mutations interfering with soeciation in any way that would cause a problem for evolution, but this is so obvious I don't see how it can be denied.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 10-12-2013 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 410 of 457 (708866)
10-15-2013 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
10-15-2013 5:42 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
quote:
That's almost a compliment so perhaps I should thank you. Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence. Not to say I always use the evidence accurately, but I know I do more than is credited to me.
Believe me Faith, it's the arrogance, the dishonesty and the double standards that really annoy people. And that behaviour, sadly is typical of Creationists.
quote:
But of course in this debate the "others" I'm up against are the entire Evolutionist Establishment, people who have been trained for years in the kind of thinking I'm arguing against. Their judgments are not going to be favorable to any new way of thinking or new way of using terms they've learned to use differently, and especially if it's a creationist presenting the argument. One keeps plugging away hoping to hit on a choice of words that might break through the bias. To you I am wrong, and I'm not going to say I'm not wrong about SOME things, I don't know, but I know my main argument is overall NOT wrong.
You have FAITH that your argument must be correct, but you don't know it in any rational way. I know that for a fact, since you still haven't managed to patch the major hole in your argument that I identified years ago.
Nor have you manage to deal with the fact that - as you yourself admit - your argument is not consistent with the conclusions of science. And I'm afraid that conclusions based on solid evidence outweigh your opinion.
quote:
Which of course in many cases I dispute since so much of evolutionary theory IS pure speculative cogitative castle-building and not at all about the real world.
Which means that you reject anything that contradicts your religious dogma.
quote:
Well, from what YOU presented of the Jutland cattle, THAT evidence DOES support what I've been arguing all along. Beautifully. Small new herds developing new phenotypes RAPIDLY? Right down my alley. Especially now that I have more of a handle on genetic drift, which I've nevertheless been talking about all along in different words.
But not in any way that would contradict evolutionary theory.
quote:
I don't ignore it, I put it aside hoping to understand it better later. I believe I've made some important points against evolution, on this thread, and elsewhere for that matter, and I try to be careful not to let myself get sidetracked into issues that I don't fully understand yet. If my good arguments aren't being recognized, why would I want to be drawn off into something else until they are?
I will point out that showing that an argument has a fatal flaw is not "ignoring" it, and that a fatally flawed argument is not "good". If you have come up with a genuinely good argument against evolution I don't remember it.
But again, if you think you have a genuinely good argument against evolution I am prepared to give it a serious evaluation. Just point me at it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 5:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 6:28 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 427 of 457 (708893)
10-16-2013 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
10-15-2013 6:28 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
quote:
Sure, it's "arrogant" to think you are right and evolutionists wrong; sure, it's "dishonest" to claim that terms mean something different than they mean to an evolutionist. Double standard? Clever way of insisting I talk like an evolutionist, seems to me.
It's arrogant and dishonest to declare evolution "dead" just because you've decided that the fatal flaw in your argument isn't important.
It's arrogant and dishonest to rely on hate and slander to dismiss expert opinion - when you don't like it.
It's dishonest to falsely attribute your own faults to your opponents, although creationists are addicted to that particular dishonesty.
quote:
I don't know if I'll come back to this post or not but I was going to try to answer your earlier one and it got rather stale so I let it go. But maybe I could at least comment again on this idea of a "hole" in my argument, by which of course you mean that I haven't effectively answered the claims about mutations.
You haven't given a reason WHY mutations can't restore diversity, over the timescales available, you haven't countered the theoretical argument that we should expect increase and decrease to be in dynamic equilibrium, you haven't countered the problem that your conclusion is in conflict with conclusions based on strong evidence other than to say that you disagree. That's a pretty big hole that can't be filled with vague handwaving about "blurring" the species or insisting that it doesn't matter.
quote:
So I'll try to answer it now: I agree that in the abstract it looks obvious, of course, just a matter of alleles-out-alleles-in, but considering what I’ve been arguing it’s far from obvious
Even if that were true - and it isn't - you need to have a stronger case than "it isn't obvious". If it's even a reasonable possibility, the evidence that diversity HAS been maintained overrides your opinion that it couldn't be.
quote:
The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various mechanisms of evolution that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before.
It would have to be a trend to be acknowledged as such. You've produced no evidence of an ACTUAL long-term downward trend. Again, as I pointed out before, relying on the relatively short periods where new species are forming while ignoring the far longer periods where we can't see much happening (but it still is) is going to give a misleading view.
quote:
and second, another part of the argument is that maintaining a new subspecies or breed or variety DEPENDS on preventing genetic increase -- or, (as breeders know about their own work), you’ll just destroy your NS-wrought adaptation or Speciation-wrought new Species which are, according to the ToE, supposedly stepping stones along the way upward and onward -- sky’s the limit -- to more and more new and different Species;
And again we have the view that there is some "intended" form for the new species and that is just wrong. Making a false analogy with breeding is not a good argument. Even worse, it is illogical. The parent species has its distinctive form and in your view it has more genetic diversity than the child species. So why can't the child species increase it's diversity to the same level ?
quote:
With that in the back of my mind it is intuitively obvious to me that mutation even if it exists and does anything like what you all think it does, is at best redundant, at worst an interference with what the ToE requires on the way from single-celled organism to human being.
So your arguments are 1) to claim that your conclusion is true and 2) to make a false analogy (which, if I remember correctly you have previously denied - certainly I have addressed it before).
Your points don't even do what you claimed for them.
quote:
And then, third, of course it looks to me like mutations of the sort you expect do NOT exist and those that do DON’T do what you think they do. Percy quoted the article about the Jutland cattle as referring to mutations, and the two mutations described are stuttering alleles and changes in a segment of DNA that do nothing (as far as anybody knows). From that kind of mutation you couldn’t possibly get anything remotely like what the ToE requires.
In fact you don't know what they do. But again, you make the mistake of looking at the wrong thing. You can't generalise from just two examples - and it's hardly honest to ignore the other examples that have been raised in previous threads. So you've got two examples of genetic changes that - so far as you know don't affect phenotype. Does that really mean that NO genetic changes could affect phenotype ? It would be irrational in the extreme to make that claim. So there's plenty wrong with your argument there - it doesn't even consider the circumstances of the study or what it was trying to do.
quote:
That's my answer. There is no "hole" in my argument.
Because obviously you would make desperate - and obviously inadequate - attempts to cover up a hole that isn't there...
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


(5)
Message 448 of 457 (708938)
10-16-2013 3:28 PM


My summary
I'd really like to thank Faith for demonstrating so vividly the delusional pride of creationists.
I first came to properly understand evolution nearly 30 years ago - I'd given up Biology at 14 and it was the first major presentation of it that I really read. Dawkins explained the basic workings of evolution - mutation producing new variations and selection culling them. Somehow Faith still fails to understand that mutations are an important part of the theory and treats them as an optional extra.
She refuses to admit that her argument is fatally flawed despite resorting to the most obvious question-begging possible in an attempt to evade the problem.
She can't accept the fact that evolution is valid science. She can't even admit that evolution is based on solid evidence.
She thinks that confronting arguments against her view of the Bible consists of sitting in an echo chamber which won't allow proper consideration of those arguments. We know this because she has no knowledge of the real arguments for the Maccabaean dating of the book of Daniel.
She thinks that we should respect expert opinion - except when the experts say things contrary to the dogmas she espouses, in which case lies and slander are the the order of the day.
But I can't blame Christianity for her behaviour. Faith is a Christian only in the broad sense of paying lip-service to certain beliefs, or of calling herself Christian. But maybe that's just another of her delusions.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024