|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Let us see if we can actually have a reasonable conversation.
quote: This seems to mean that we disagree with your opinions because we choose to follow the actual evidence. So, why are your opinions to be preferred to the evidence ? eg
quote: There are known examples of speciation but none of this “genetic depletion”. The Creationist “kind” concept, which you appear to endorse, accepts speciation. But ven your favourite example, the cheetah has variation as proven by the existence of the king cheetah. Therefore this is obviously your opinion and in conflict with the evidence. And to add to this
quote: Why should we believe that your understanding of the processes involved is better than ours. Especially given that we have had to correct your errors in the past discussion of this issue ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. ... Thanks for the comic relief, faith. This part in particular. Hysterical. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're welcome, I'm sure, but if you want humorless stupid me to get your point you need to do a little more explaining. Far as I can see, my point is good. The genome of any given creature has the genetic stuff for making that particular creature, and if you want to get from that creature to some other creature for which the genetic instructions do not exist in the genome in question, something really genetically drastic has to happen to change that genome, so drastic that it is really impossible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... The genome of any given creature has the genetic stuff for making that particular creature, and if you want to get from that creature to some other creature for which the genetic instructions do not exist in the genome in question, something really genetically drastic has to happen to change that genome, so drastic that it is really impossible. Something like mutation and selection occurring in a breeding population over several generations ... ie - your basic evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
... something really genetically drastic has to happen to change that genome, so drastic that it is really impossible.
That sounds kind of like a personal judgement to me. We wouldn't want anything too drastic to happen, would we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes:
The sarcasm is a corollary of Poe's law:
I ask that there be less sarcastic commentary."Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views." Wikipedia
To wit:
It is impossible to suggest a position so ridiculous that a creationist won't accept it as true. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
It would be interesting if you could show us those differences between the cow genome and the fish genome. The cow genome does not have any genetic stuff for making fish.... Aren't they both made of the same LEGOs? What is there that prevents taking apart a LEGO castle and rebuilding it into a LEGO treehouse?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
so drastic that it is really impossible.
You misspelled "due to the mechanisms of evolution". You obviously know nothing about the magnitude of genetic changes. Almost all of them are teeny and weeny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did spell out some time ago the differences that have to be navigated to get from the reptilian ear to the mammalian ear, which is a much more limited project than getting from a cow to a fish but I may try that one two. Remove legs from genome. Add fins and fish tail and fish breathing apparatus. This is silly. Just to make those two changes would require millions of years of mutations and still you wouldn't get them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the changes are teeny and weeny which I suppose they would be, getting any one of them in the right place for the new genme would take millions or billions of years of mutations and there is no reason whatever to think any of it would come together in a coherent new creature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course you are wrong because you don’t have the slightest understanding of the processes involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, the personal judgment makes sense because the genome of every creature has everything it needs for all the characteristics and variations of the creature's physical and behavioral makeup, all right there. Every reprductive event recapitulates all the characteristics to make a new version of it. When you imagine that the genome simply eventually goes on to make something entirely different, even by teeny weeny changes, you have to imagine something new happening in the genome that doesn't already exist. That means there are no guidelines for it of any sort, it just appears for no reason, through a mutation I suppose, an accident of replication that changes something in the genome into something that has nothing whatever to do with the creature that genome constructs. Mutations upon mutations would have to occur, all of them totally accidental, without any guidelines whatever, millions of trials and errors then before any of it amounts to anything coherent at all, and there is in fact no reason at that level of probability why anything coherent would ever emerge. Justg escrescences growing on excrescences, like a cancer though they might be benigh, just utterly useless. Mutations that change a given gene into another version of the gene may do something to the creature that is benign, neutral or even occasionally "beneficial" if you aren't thinking too big, but usually deleterious. Now macroevolution requires a change that changes something in the creature into something that is not related to the creature in order to get an entirely new kind of creature.
Nobody is really thinking about what such changes to a genome would involve along these lines if you continue to think it's feasible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gosh you're all so good at tit for tat. Not much else I fear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well the simplest answer to this is that when we carry out such a process, it works. Random variation plus selection produces functional objects, indeed objects of a sophistication greater than we could deliberately design.
We can also of course observe it working on a small scale on organisms. So unless you can think of some theoretical reason why it shouldn't work in the particular case when you don't want it to, then the logical conclusion is that it does. Also to return to the topic of this thread we have the transitional fossils, which do make it look awfully like it actually happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Due to the mechanisms of evolution" doesn't describe what has to happen to get macroevolution from a given genome. Perhaps you could explain it in some detail?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024