|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I’m not convinced it was “just in time” and I don’t think you have a good idea of the time available either. Besides your extreme bias against mutations has been demonstrated here quite sufficiently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I will point out first that if the “just in time” is part of your assessment it is valid to question that. Compare my reaction to your similar point above. And it is a fact that you are biased against mutations - to the point where you tried to suggest actual mutations weren’t mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I’m not because I am not convinced the timing was that tight, because melanism is fairly common (so likely there are other ways for it to happen) and because unlikely events do happen.
quote: But it does fit the “usual idea of a mutation”.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
95% of the population where? It was 98% in Manchester - a heavily industrial area. I really doubt that it was 95% of the national population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: The dark colour is a dominant trait (which contributed to it’s rapid spread). So it wasn’t hiding as a recessive. And it just happens to be associated with a mutation in a region relevant to wing colour (and a transposition - not a point mutation - too). Saying it appeared earlier does nothing to show that it isn’t a mutation. It simply undermines your “just in time” claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It’s a transposition. A section of DNA from elsewhere in the genome has been swapped in for the DNA that is present in the white moths.
Transposable Element
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Unless you actually found some real evidence it probably isn’t worth repeating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It really would be vastly improbable that it would look like a transposition, wouldn’t it ? Tangle points out that it’s over 20,000 nucleotides. That sort of match doesn’t occur by chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: A change in DNA is a mutation by definition. So we’re back to your weird ideas about what constitutes “evidence”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: The evidence is conclusively against a recent Creation. There is strong evidence of evolutionary relationships between species you assume to be separate creations. Your assumption of original perfect genomes seems to lack any evidence at all. And it needs significant work before it even deserves scientific consideration (your ideas about the variation in the immune system have obvious problems). In fact I think I can safely say that your ”theory” is entirely based on religion, lacks an adequate model and struggles to even account for the evidence (indeed it’s more about ad hoc attempts to explain the evidence away). Since your theory lacks any solid basis in evidence, if we stick to science, we should dismiss it because the evidence overwhelmingly favours the mainstream view over yours. The religious basis is your main case - you haven’t got anything else worth talking about (as we have seen).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I’ll just note that the evidence is strongly against some points - indeed we can say that the assertion that there are no useful mutations is definitely untrue - and there are a lot more details needed.
I don’t think you have any idea of how you could get the same range of disease resistance with only two alleles per locus, for instance. Don’t forget that in that case half the population would be homozygous at any given locus. Nor do I think you have any sensible explanation for why the genetic difference in the peppered moth would look like a transposition (which is a known mechanism of mutation). A coherent model which is at odds with the evidence and heavily relies on ad hoc assumptions to try and cope with that is scientifically worthless and doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t think that a single point in your model can be shown to be true or even likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That’s an admission that the evidence is on our side.
quote: It is quite simple really. When a population splits into two or more species both populations will - in general - retain the ancestral traits, while developing new traits of their own. A nested hierarchy is the expected outcome of evolution. And I have to point out that your are not absolved of explaining the evidence just because you don’t understand your opponent’s explanation. The nested hierarchy speaks very strongly against separate creations which can’t be expected to neatly fall into that pattern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: That’s the problem. We have an observation crying out for explanation and your model has none. Ours does explain it.
quote: Ignoring evidence against your model by declaring it irrelevant is not exactly honest argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: There are plenty of crank ideas that don’t mention God. If you want your ideas or be seen to be based on scientific facts you’d do better to base it on scientific facts. Leaving God out doesn’t make your ideas look any less cranky. Repeatedly trying to dismiss the fact that you have no explanation for a lot of the genetic evidence doesn’t help either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: That still doesn’t make your ideas any more scientific. In fact you can’t escape the religion by just leaving out the Creation. For instance, your weird ideas about the genes of the immune system aren’t based on any real understanding of the relevant natural facts - not at all. Your ideas about how God should have done it are much more relevant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024