|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, it doesn’t. You are comparing the outcome of aggressive selective breeding with the outcome of ordinary natural selection. The differences matter.
quote: That really is a very, very unlikely assumption. Why would the diversity be heavily concentrated in a small subpopulation ?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Since your understanding is not supported by the evidence it seems rather clear that it is something you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
...are found in Utah as explained here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024