Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 2684 of 2887 (832445)
05-03-2018 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2683 by JonF
05-03-2018 4:08 PM


Re: trilobite species
But Faith’s argument is simple really.
Trilobites all have the same body parts, even if they are different shapes and sizes, so they must be the same species. Chimps and humans have the same body parts but they are different shapes and sizes so obviously they are not only different species but different Kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2683 by JonF, posted 05-03-2018 4:08 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 2727 of 2887 (832525)
05-05-2018 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2711 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:27 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
You are right I would point to the dog species Kind since they vary greatly in size and are all still dogs. The trilobites had a lot more genetic diversity to play with than today's dogs do, but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today, although they went through the bottleneck of the Flood and the trilobites are all pre-Flood with all or at least most of their original genetic diversity available.
All this is just assumption. I bet you haven’t even got any measurements of genetic diversity in dogs. (There’s plenty of phenotypic diversity but that’s due to aggressive selective breeding - funny how you keep missing that point.)
And the fact that it is all assumption is the reason why you won’t persuade us. Even if your ideas about trilobites were plausible without assuming a massive program of selective breeding - which they aren’t.
Try coming up with evidence if you want to persuade us. Real evidence, not lies, not things you’ve made up. Evidence that stands up to examination, without relying on cherry picking and or avoiding all the inconvenient details that go against your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2711 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2728 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:02 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2732 of 2887 (832530)
05-05-2018 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2728 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:02 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
The great phenotypic diversity couldn't exist unless there was great genetic diversity in the overall dog population.
That doesn’t mean that dogs have an unusual degree of genetic diversity. If it did wolves would show a lot more phenotypic diversity than most species. Do they ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2728 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2733 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2734 of 2887 (832532)
05-05-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2733 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:20 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
It's the fact that there are so many dog breeds that shows that the dog Kind has an unusual degree of genetic diversity in the overall population.
No, it doesn’t. You are comparing the outcome of aggressive selective breeding with the outcome of ordinary natural selection. The differences matter.
quote:
It would be odd if wolves had much since they don't vary much phenotypically. if wolves represent the original dog then the many different breeds of dog must have taken all the genetic diversity with them, as it were, isolating the wolf species and reducing its genetic diversity so that it is really a breed rather than representative of the original population
That really is a very, very unlikely assumption. Why would the diversity be heavily concentrated in a small subpopulation ?
quote:
It's probably phenotypically quite different from the original too.
More reasonably, they probably aren’t.
Instead of arguing by making assumptions and ignoring inconvenient facrpts why not produce real evidence ? Or at least admit that you are making assumptions that you can’t really support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2733 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2736 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:57 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 2737 of 2887 (832535)
05-05-2018 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2736 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:57 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
If an animal has a propensity to split off into isolated smaller populations in nature it's going to develop new phenotypic characteristics or breeds or varieties or races because that's a form of selection: the new group takes a portion of the genetic variability with it which creates a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population which will produce a new phenotype that eventually becomes characteristic of the new population.
First it is pretty unlikely that a small subpopulation will contain a significant amount of the genetic diversity of the population. Second, just splitting the population is drift, not selection. Third we don’t have nature producing anything like the variety of dogs within a single species.
As far as I know neither herds nor packs are reproductively isolated, and I think we can agree that neither shows the degree of variation you are talking about.
quote:
But if all those dog breeds came from the original wolf the wolf wouldn't have a lot of genetic diversity left for that kind of phenotypic variation.
That’s obviously wrong. Just because a dog has a particular allele doesn’t mean there aren’t other copies of it in wolves. It’s very unlikely that the split between dogs and wolves had much impact on the genetic diversity of wolves at all.
quote:
I thought I said the opposite. The wolf's genetic diversity would be reduced because of all the separated populations that got separated from it taking their own new gene frequencies with them, reducing the wolf to a breed itself.
You definitely said that a small sub-population (the ancestors of dogs) had most of the genetic diversity of the combined population. If they didn’t they could hardly take it away with them.
quote:
But their own genetic diversity would be reduced because they have become separated from the now greater population of all those other dog breeds. It would be very unusual if they didn't also change from their own reduced genetic diversity and new gene frequencies.
Would it ? What does the evidence say? Since the bottleneck in the elephant seal occurred in historical times perhaps you would like to tell us about the phenotypically changes that caused ?
quote:
I'm describing the actual situation as I understand it, how nature produces new phenotypes by simple reproductive isolation, not making things up.
Since your understanding is not supported by the evidence it seems rather clear that it is something you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2736 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2738 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 4:42 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2739 of 2887 (832537)
05-05-2018 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2738 by Faith
05-05-2018 4:42 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
Of course it wouldn't. Where are you getting this idea?
From you. You asserted that a small sub-population (the ancestors of dogs) must have taken most of the genetic diversity of wolves away with them. That could only happen if most of the genetic diversity was contained in the dog ancestors.
Edited by PaulK, : Put back taken (accidentally lost in writing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2738 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 4:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2741 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:21 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 2742 of 2887 (832540)
05-05-2018 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2740 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:09 AM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth.
You’re already confusing the strata with the time period. You can say that large areas of the planet had some sedimentary deposition during the Jurassic period, but it is nonsense to say that the period covered enormous areas.
quote:
Of course dinosaurs can't live on rocks, and of course it will be explained that the rock wasn't there for the entire time period but only a small part of it,
Perhaps you should give up this argument because you can’t get away from your crazy idea that the surface had to turn to rock.
It will be and has been explained to you that this is not the case. It will be and has been explained to you that the material was not rock when the dinosaurs were living on it. It will be and has been explained to you that the dinosaurs were living there when the material was being deposited as sediment.
And until you can get that, you really have no business discussing the issue. You’d do better spending your time reflecting on how you could get it so badly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2740 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2744 of 2887 (832542)
05-05-2018 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2741 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:21 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
I don't even remotely recognize what that is supposed to be saying.
It’s your argument. If it doesn’t make sense to you, that is your problem.
The rest of your problem is that it is generally accepted that domestic dogs are descended from wolves. It is the diversity of the domestic dog that concerns us, not that of canids in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2741 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:21 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2745 of 2887 (832543)
05-05-2018 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2743 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:31 AM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.
That you misunderstand the map hardly means that you are not confused. A map of places where you can find Jurassic rocks (which is what you are referring to) is not a map of the period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2861 of 2887 (832728)
05-09-2018 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2859 by Faith
05-09-2018 7:39 AM


Dinosaur tracks in coal....
...are found in Utah as explained here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2871 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 9:40 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 2886 of 2887 (832866)
05-13-2018 6:43 AM


Summary
As we know Faith is dedicated to the idea that fossils must be evidence of the Flood because if they are not they are a mortal blow to YEC dogma.
The obvious falsehood of her position is illustrated here Message 2509. She is reduced to claiming that cherry-picked aspects of the fossil record - examined at a superficial level - are consistent with the Flood. As she makes clear she doesn’t claim that even those support her views over the mainstream view.
It’s pitiful stuff. A feeble attempt at deception which can only fool those who are already inclined to prefer YEC dogma to science and aren’t willing investigate the real evidence - or even take note of the points raised by Faith’s opponents.
And yet she insists that the fossil record must be accepted as good evidence for the Flood on those flimsy grounds. In any rational mind a deeper investigation is needed - both of Faith’s claims, and of the fossil record itself. The observed order of the fossil record alone is sufficient evidence to refute Faith’s claims.
The fossil record is not evidence of the Flood. That is a clear fact.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024