|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the history of life require "macroevolution"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: As I've pointed out in the past this is false. So long as new genetic diversity can arise - and it can - evolution can continue.
quote: In other words you consider actual species that exist - such as wolves - to not be an identifiable species, just a "motley collection of phenotypes". Which is pretty obviously silly. Obviously it is possible for a species to contain a good deal of genetic diversity - and from that it follows that a species completely lacking in genetic diversity can add genetic diversity while remaining an identifiable species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Obviously it is possible for a new variation to appear and to eventually take over the population - or even better for the population to split with the new variation taking over one and being eliminated from the other.
quote: Which is quite enough given a timescale of hundreds of millennia. The rest of your rambling is pointless. Obviously it is possible to have genetic diversity and have a recognisable species. Obviously a species low on genetic diversity can add more and still be a recognisable species.
quote: Given that we don't have genetic surveys of species living a few million years ago I wouldn't expect to be able to show it to your satisfaction. All we have is strong evidence that it happened in the genetic similarities and differences of modern species. Which is rather better than denying obvious facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course it can - and if you really thought about it you'd see that.
quote: And here we have proof that you aren't thinking. There is no need to lose most if them. If, for instance a dozen genes got a new allele then keeping all of them - in place of older variations would be the most effective way to move towards a new species.
quote: You assume that, but if there is any such effect then so far it has been overwhelmed by other factors. Like, for instance, the fact that the number of genes is not fixed, and genes can get added.
quote: Since all life on Earth is the same Kind - to the extent that "Kinds" can be said to exist then that is trivially true, but completely useless to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It certainly can happen, the evidence says that it has happened and reality doesn't care whether it "needs" to happen.
quote: That's your assumption, and the evidence disagrees with you.
quote: And another assumption contradicted by the evidence
quote: Obviously wrong. Replace enough alleles with new ones and you'll get something that would be considered a different species from the original population, without any net loss of diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Obviously untrue.
quote: The fact that domestic breeders can and do use mutations they consider desirable proves that mutations do add genetic diversity - which evolution can use. They also prove that existing species can have considerable genetic diversity while still being recognisable as a species.
quote: How would this experiment allow for the relatively slow pace of evolution ? A typical speciation event is expected to take hundreds of years, while the time between speciation events should be hundreds of thousands of years. Unless you are somehow going to find a way to dramatically speed up all the processes involved by the same factor and can show that the acceleration won't significantly affect the outcome your experiment is utterly impractical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It's not just that you answered the question, it is that you answered it in a rude and arrogant way that completely discounted whatever CRR might mean.
Utterly silly question, incomprehensible really.
Asking CRR to clarify something he said should not be seen as "utterly silly" and if you find it "incomprehensible" the problem is clearly with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I am talking about the exchange in this thread. RAZD asked CRR a question. You butted in and rudely answered it as if the question was about your ideas.
quote: The links are already provided by the forum software. All you have to do is to follow the discussion back a few messages. Is that too difficult for you ? In that case CRR posted Message 74RAZD responded Message 75 You rudely butted in Message 76 Less than twelve hours after posting that message you've apparently forgotten all about it.
quote: If you can't manage to follow the thread of a conversation then someone has to.Why not me ? And why not simply follow the discussion a few steps back rather than making angry demands ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You butted in on a request for CRR to clarify his views. Since you aren't CRR and don't have any special knowledge that would let you answer for him, you can't offer anything more than your personal opinion. You were also extremely rude about it, despite not even bothering to understand the context. Simply pointing out that you don't believe that would be enough. You should also know by now that trying to cover up your silly mistakes by bullying me into silence doesn't work. it just makes you look even worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I don't think that there is any doubt that literalist inerrantist theology is bad.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024