|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: In reality that is an open question. Whether macroevolution involves anything more than iterated microevolution is not decided.
quote: By the usual definitions it also includes mutations - and in fact you yourself have explicitly done so by claiming that antibiotic resistance is an example of microevolution. Since antibiotic resistance can appear in a clonal population - without any genetic variation - it must arrive by mutation in those instances. (It is, of course rather easy to get a clonal population of organisms that rapidly reproduce by binary fission)
quote: Given the timescales involved it seems quite plausible that large numbers of smaller changes could do the same thing.
quote: Then how do we get antibiotic resistance appearing in a clonal population ?
quote: No, we don’t because of mutation. And that is why it hasn’t happened.
quote: If producing antibiotic resistance in a clonal population is macroevolution - and you are saying that it is (even if everyone else disagrees) - you have been proven wrong by a simple experiment that has been tried many times over.
quote: When you can come up with a genuinely better explanation - one that fits the evidence better, not one you happen to like - then you can say that honestly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course you are wrong because you don’t have the slightest understanding of the processes involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You’re only good at empty bluster. Because the reality is that you don’t understand the processes. See Message 27 for examples. For instance:
an accident of replication that changes something in the genome into something that has nothing whatever to do with the creature that genome constructs
Or would you like to explain how that actually makes sense ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: The begged question here is whether small changes can add up to something “completely new”). We have known since Darwin’s time that a human-like eye can be built from relatively small changes - many stages exist in modern life. While the evidence for the evolution of feathers is limited by the fact that the fossil record does not usually preserve them we do have evidence of simpler structures Eg
The coelurosaur lineages most distant from birds had feathers that were relatively short and composed of simple, possibly branching filaments.[17] Simple filaments are also seen in therizinosaurs, which also possessed large, stiffened "quill"-like feathers.
Wikipedia So, are big changes really as necessary as you assume ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Your paradigm might use different definitions but that is not a reason for anyone else to use them. You’d do far better to invent your own terminology to avoid confusion. And it certainly isn’t a justification for your nasty accusations.
quote: You mean that it’s not what you call macroevolution. But that means you’re the one playing semantic games. And, in fact, the genetic level is not even the most important one.
quote: That depends on why interbreeding stops. And in the case if the crows being discussed elsewhere, it doesn’t even seem to be primarily genetic - the environment is probably more important.
quote: Are the genetic differences between chimpanzee and human really that drastic ? Do you have any direct knowledge that supports that? The physical differences certainly aren’t that drastic - the basic skeletal structure is the same, the same organs are present in each.
quote: What makes it deceitful ? You are the one confusing the issue so it would seem that the charge is better directed against you,
quote: Maybe you should try thinking about what you say. How can defining macroevolution as speciation make a mockery of the claim that speciation occurs ? Especially when it comes to giving examples.
quote: How about the development of antibiotic resistance in a clonal population of bacteria ?
quote: And there we have another example of your failure to understand the processes. Genes code for proteins. That’s it. How you get from the gene to a trait is a whole lot more complicated and the idea that a gene has something it’s “for” better be tightly tied to the protein - and not to phenotypic traits that might be somehow affected.
quote: This is still assumption on your part. You still haven’t produced anything close to justifying it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
There you go again attributing your faults to others.
Now are you going to answer my points or are you just going to go on using the tactics you falsely ascribe to the “Left” ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Using the same words with different meanings isn’t what RAZD meant. He meant using different words.
quote: And if you thought about it you would realise that was a bad idea since it excludes mutation. Which means that any case where mutation is involved should be considered macroevolution.
quote: Which is just your opinion - you’ve never offered any real support for it or answered the objections.
quote: Take the time to actually think about the issues for once,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: First, that isn’t relevant to your supposed contradiction:
I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions.
Second your whole justification for your false attacks is that we have to use your definitions of “macroevolution” etc. - just because your views are opposed to mainstream thought. Which is obviously silly if you bothered to think about it.
quote: Obviously making up more excuses to try to justify your bad behaviour is going to go badly for you. I just wish you had the honesty to apologise. But then that’s too much to expect from a Creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You mean that you say that they are. Whatever the evidence. But that is hardly justification for your accusations, or for your hypocrisy.
quote: Oh dear, we are back to you letting your imagination run away with you. Genes can be lost or gained, chromosomes can split or fuse, and the proteins produced by genes can find new uses. And in what sense does the genome “not change” when genes change or the number of genes changes ?
quote: You say that but you offer no real support for it. Because you only pretend to understand the processes.
quote: Again that is what you assume, despite the evidence. And we have evidence of greater evolution. Evolution is the best explanation for the taxonomic tree of life, for the geographic distribution of species and for the order of the fossil record. And that was true in Darwin’s day and remains true now. The genetic evidence of relationships only adds to it. Imaginary objections can hardly stand against that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Even if it were just your assumed “standard variation” saying that speciation isn’t speciation is an obviously self-contradiction. Perhaps you should try thinking more before making such obvious errors.
quote: But you haven’t produced any evidence that they are examples of that. I’ll be generous and assume that you simply didn’t realise the necessity of showing that your “examples” really are examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Even creationists believe In speciation these days. Even you did until you found out it was macroevolution - and you have the bizarre idea that it is the word that is significant, not it’s meaning, Indeed, in another thread we have an example of speciation in progress. Speciation is a fact. Ignorantly spouting nonsense won’t change that.
quote: Because common sense says we have to believe arrogant nonsense ? Hardly. And that is all you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Needless to say there was no hint of that until afterwards. Indeed, your first reaction was not to explain that you didn’t really mean “speciation” but to indulge in your usual habit of making false accusations. And let us note that you still have not given any reason to think that speciation is not speciation.
quote: Creationists have good reason to accept speciation - especially the Young Earthers who need it because Noah’s Ark is too small to hold all the animals they need to put on there. Even you still hold to their idea oif Kinds instead of insisting that all species are separate Kinds as you must do to reject speciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: By which you mean that the phenotypic changes are typically small. But small phenotypic changes add up to larger changes. As I have explained.
quote: But species to species transitions do not generally involve anything “new” in your sense. Can you think of even one example of a proposed species-species transition which does ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Given that you still seem to be using the Creationist kind concept which assumes speciation it seems that I’m not wrong at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024