|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
So, about ten fossils spanning a period of millions of years demonstrate microevolutionary steps? I think you’re a few fossils short to make that claim - by about a thousand . at least.
Dredge writes:
Wrong. Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
What a pity you haven't recognised all my other nuts of wisdom
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
. of a fraction of the total genome - that's the point
The similarly is well over 90%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
So, about ten fossils spanning a period of millions of years demonstrate microevolutionary steps? I think you’re a few fossils short to make that claim - by about a thousand . at least. Your observation that this sequence is short a thousand intermediate fossils is based on what rationale? How long did you expect microevolution to take turning one species into another? You have shown us no reason to doubt either the lineage or the timeline in this sequence. You have only your personal incredulity as an objection. Your incredulity, born of a lack of training and a religious motivation, means nothing here. Got anything else? Anything actually substantive?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanyptyerx writes:
You're ignoring my point: You can dig up all the fossils you like, but they don't tell us HOW macroevolution occurred. Neo-Darwinism is found wanting when trying to explain the fossil record: Tanypteryx writes:
as more evidence is discovered we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past.Dredge writes:
Nope, I'm just reading reports of interesting new fossil finds all the time. Nonsense. You are evo-extrapolating into the realms of evo-fantasy. "As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior ” whose variation it describes ” actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences." Gerd Muller, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Evolutionary Theorist Concedes: Evolution Largely Avoids Biggest Questions of Biological Origins | Evolution News Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
AZPaul3 writes: This video (YouTube) is from the American Museum of Natural History.Without an understanding of a UCA and the genetic bush that sprang from it, this stuff would be meaningless. I watched this video and I can't see why the theory of common descent (UCA) is important to any of it. So please explain what you mean, as I fear you are in the grip of some sort of delusion that I can perhaps help you escape from. I didn't expect you to understand how/why the video relates to UCA. You're a denier, remember? Did you lose your list of the cast in this little play? I added the video to show everyone else in the lurk-o-sphere there is both utility and applied use to the theory. You'll notice that the video was not a response to you.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
You can dig up all the fossils you like, but they don't tell us HOW macroevolution occurred. We already know how macroevolution occurred.The fossil record shows us that microevolution over many thousand generations is macroevolution. The fossils tell us what happened and Genetics tells us the chemistry. That's how. It's all covered in the The Theory of Evolution. You really should learn about it. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So you neglected to mention the whole point.
So what? What evidence do you have that the rest of the genome would make any difference? Do you know the difference between the tested part and the untested part? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You're ignoring my point: You can dig up all the fossils you like, but they don't tell us HOW macroevolution occurred. Neo-Darwinism is found wanting when trying to explain the fossil record:
Of course the fossils themselves do not tell you the mechanism for evolution. We have other known data sets that provide us with a number of mechanisms, both known and documented and others that make sense in a geological framework. Your argument is irrelevant.
"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior ” whose variation it describes ” actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
Wow... Gerd Muller, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” https://evolutionnews.org/...questions-of-biological-origins So Muller wants to replace 'evolution' with the 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. Is that correct? That would be devastating to evolution, I'm sure. The point here is that as our knowledge base grows we see more of the finer details of evolution and see where it needs to be refined. I call this 'learning'. You may have heard of it. In the meantime, neither Muller, nor Bechly, nor DI, nor you can provide us with a mechanism for intelligent design or 'progressive creation'. Show me a designer. Show me a genetic engineer from the Triassic. Show me a genetic engineering facility from the Cambrian. Show me a 3+ billion year old genetic engineering project that leaves behind no independent evidence of its existence. You may be absolutely correct, but you cannot present any hard, independent evidence for your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We already know how macroevolution occurred.The fossil record shows us that microevolution over many thousand generations is macroevolution. The fossils tell us what happened and Genetics tells us the chemistry. That's how. That's just a bunch of wishful hogwash. Even a hundred generations of microevolution would deplete the genetic variability to the point that no further variation could occur down that llne of variation, while thousands would most probably lead to extinction of that llne of variation. You might get what you laughably believe to be "speciation," which is really nothing but a variety of the same creature that's so genetically depleted it's lost the ability to continue breeding with the parent population. Then you fantasize further variation from there which is impossible but you haven't noticed. The fossils tell you nothing, you just imagine it, you impose your imagination on what is nothing but a cemetery of dead creatures killed in the Flood. So the Genetics you hang your hopes on is impossible, and so are the bones. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
So the Genetics you hang your hopes on is impossible, and so are the bones. And yet both are documented, tested, verified. Not bad for the impossible. By your definition Science does impossible things more and more these days. It's hard keeping up with all the impossibilities science is uncovering in this universe.
Even a hundred generations of microevolution would deplete the genetic variability to the point that no further variation could occur down that llne of variation, while thousands would most probably lead to extinction of that llne of variation. You might get what you laughably believe to be "speciation," which is really nothing but a variety of the same creature that's so genetically depleted it's lost the ability to continue breeding with the parent population. That's just a bunch of wishful hogwash.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Ernst Mayr suggested an eminently more sensible definition - macroevolution occurs only at the level of genus or even higher (an idea he may have stolen from yours truly, btw). That seems somewhat unlikely since, as I pointed out earlier, it's a meaningless definition. Principally for the reason that there's no agreed on definition of 'genus'. How many organisms are included within a genus is a matter of fashion, aesthetics and what seems most convenient for taxonomists. As an example, titi monkeys have been for a long time been classified as one genus, Callicebus. Recently, though there has been a push by some taxonomists to recognise three genera of titis, Callicebus, Cheracebus, and Plecturocebus. The long discussion of why can be read here for free if you really want to, but it can be briefly summarised thus: 'There are loads of species of titi monkey, and we can split them into three clear groups on genetic, morphological and ecological grounds. We want these groups to be different genera.' By your genius-level definition, then, would recognising the common ancestry of titis be macroevolution now? Was it a few years ago, before anyone recognised different genera? What's the point of such a meaningless and arbitrary definition, and how can it help if we're not even in agreement on whether evolution is a thing. I went and dug out some Mayr to read what he actually said. From his 1942 book, Systematics And The Origin Of Species:
quote: Seems to me that he saw the term, much like genus, as having an imprecise definition that varies according to convenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Faith writes: That's just a bunch of wishful hogwash. Even a hundred generations of microevolution would deplete the genetic variability to the point that no further variation could occur down that llne of variation, Every individual in every generation is born with mutations which increases genetic variation. This is an observable fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
It's also an observable fact that after thousands of years of animal and plant breeding, using even unnatural methods such as inbreeding to produce gross mutations, it never occurred to anyone that plants and animals could be breed to became something radically different to the original species ... until the atheist fairy tale of Darwinism came along and hijacked science, that is. Every individual in every generation is born with mutations which increases genetic variation. This is an observable fact. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's got nothing to do with the CC selling out to theistic evolution, but everything to do with reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries ... as opposed to denying reality and clinging to an unenlightened sixteenth-century exegesis. I suppose this is probably his way of accepting the Catholic nonsense about evolution Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024