Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 421 of 785 (855744)
06-22-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by JonF
06-22-2019 1:14 PM


Did Linnaeus arrange his system as nested hierarchy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by JonF, posted 06-22-2019 1:14 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2019 1:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 422 of 785 (855748)
06-22-2019 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:21 PM


Yes, he did. The Taxonomy of Linnaeus divided three “Kingdoms” (animals, plants and minerals) into orders, orders into genera and genera into species.
The classification of animals is still recognisable, although there have been many changes over the years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 423 of 785 (855749)
06-22-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:12 PM


I.e. you have no clue about what Linnaeus did.
His top classification was plant or animal or mineral. Here's animal, direct from his book. You'll have to click on the image to get a version large enough to read.
Across the top are the secondary classifications (quadrupeds, birds, amphibians, fish, insects, worms). The left part of each column under those top items is the tertiary classification. In the middle part of those columns is the quaternary classification, and the right part is examples (I think).
I've added a red arrow to Man in the upper left corner. Linnaeus classified Man under Anthropomorphia (man-shaped). He classified Anthropomorphia under Quadrupedia (four limbs), and Quadrupedia under Animalia.
Or, in the same manner as the image I posted previously:
Damned if I know what Bradypus means.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2019 2:21 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 9:50 PM JonF has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 424 of 785 (855750)
06-22-2019 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by JonF
06-22-2019 2:15 PM


Bradypus appears to refer to the sloths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by JonF, posted 06-22-2019 2:15 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2019 2:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 425 of 785 (855752)
06-22-2019 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by PaulK
06-22-2019 2:21 PM


and there I thought it was the quarterback for the NE Patriots ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2019 2:21 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 426 of 785 (855771)
06-22-2019 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by JonF
06-22-2019 2:15 PM


I've seen that chart many times and it is vey hard to read even zoomed to the max but I don't see how it shows a nested hierarchy?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by JonF, posted 06-22-2019 2:15 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2019 5:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 430 by JonF, posted 06-23-2019 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 427 of 785 (855794)
06-23-2019 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-22-2019 9:50 PM


quote:
I've seen that chart many times and it is vey hard to read even zoomed to the max but I don't see how it shows a nested hierarchy?
You’d probably find it easier if you paid attention to the explanations that Jon and I have already given.
Nevertheless here is how it works.
The whole two-page spread covers the Animal kingdom.
The six major columns are the classes. The first is “QUADRUPEDIA”. Defining traits are listed below (so we can see that the “QUADRUPEDIA” are mammals - I can grasp Latin enough to see that they are hairy, have four “feet”, females give live birth and lactate)
The subdivisions of those columns are the more detailed parts of the hierarchy.
Thus on the left we have the order “ANTHROPOMORPHA” which is subdivided into the genera “Homo”, “Simia” and “Bradypus”. Traits are again listed.
The next sub-column to the right is the defining traits of the genera.
The next sub-column divides the entries into species, and includes division into subspecies. (Homo has the entry “H” and the sub-divisions are bracketed together - humans subdivided into Europeans, Americans, Asians and Africans). The entries for “Simia” are not bracketed together, nor are the entries for “Bradypus” - they are full species. Traits are not listed.
So there you have the nested hierarchy, kingdom, order, genera, species, subspecies.
Each subspecies is fully contained - nested - within a species.
Each species is fully contained within a genus.
Each genus is fully contained within an order.
Each order is fully contained within a kingdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 428 of 785 (855797)
06-23-2019 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Faith
06-22-2019 11:32 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
I don't use "God did it" so would you please stop attributing that to me?
But you do say that God did it, many times in just this thread alone, for example:
Faith writes:
I believe God created separate Kinds/Species at the beginning.
...
But it's the same argument for the chimp genome which God created separately.
...
God doesn't work with mutations in my model, He created DNA to be a permanent system of creating interesting variations from generation to generation, and mutations are nothing but mistakes that are proliferating because of the Fall.
...
God doesn't make changes, He designed a genome for each creature and let it do its thing.
...
God didn't change ANYTHING, He designed a genome for each Kind.
...
God made one design for the chimp and another for the human.
...
It begins with God creating separate Kinds but after that, AS I SAID, the discussion is about the natural phenomena that follow.
Your further claim that God's involvement ended at creation misrepresents creationist thinking. In the creationist view God reduced every "kind" (which remains undefined) to just a maximum of four alleles per gene during the flood (more for clean species). If the creationist view is correct then somehow between the flood and today a number of genes have come to possess a large number of alleles across a population, far beyond four, which would require numerous non-deleterious mutations, no matter how "kind" is defined. The ABO gene has more than 200 different alleles.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 06-23-2019 3:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 429 of 785 (855798)
06-23-2019 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
06-22-2019 12:23 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
There's a ton of stuff I ignore that's posted here if I don't see its relevance or it doesn't make sense. I have no ambition to learn all the stuff that gets posted here, I have a few pretty circumscribed areas that I pay attention to.
This is a formula guaranteed to maintain ignorance. All participants should read and understand the posts they respond to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 430 of 785 (855801)
06-23-2019 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-22-2019 9:50 PM


I explained why it's a nested hierarchy. Read what I wrote and try to understand why the second image agrees with the first image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 431 of 785 (855815)
06-23-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
06-22-2019 10:17 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith, if this is too big I can break it down into smaller chunks.
I've found it difficult to take the nested hierarchy notion seriously for some reason. I don't think I really get what is being claimed about it. If it's just the fact that there seems to be a regularity in inheritance patterns from generation to generation, that seems rather trivial or obvious and of no real importance.
What you say above about changes in hereditary traits from generation to generation seems to me to be what I just said, obvious, predictable but contributing nothing to the ToE. For one thing the only pattern of inheritance that could be observed is microevolution -- which you acknowledge -- ...
Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.
Let's take anagenesis -- lineal evolution -- for example:
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
This doesn't result in nested hierarchies, because there is no branching. However all breeding populations go through this process, and you can draw a lineage chart of populations one generation at a time. The oldest in the lineage would be the parent population, and each following generation would be their descendants.
The first generation of descendants would have ancestral (P1) traits plus some derived (P2) traits due to mutations.
The second generation of descendants would have fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, and some new derived (P3) traits due to mutations.
The third generation of descendants would have even fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, some second descendant derived (P3) traits due to mutations and some third descendant derived (P4) traits due to mutations.
etc.
Thus we can look at the traits, either morphologically or genetically, and see this pattern.
The parent population would have P1 traits, but no P2, P3 or P4 traits
The second generation of descendants would have some P1 traits and some P2 traits but no P3 or P4 traits
The third generation of descendants would have fewer P1 traits, some P2 traits and some P3 traits but no P4 traits.
This is the evidence that demonstrates lineal descent from a parent population, and this necessarily holds for all evolved species. Thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution.
This can be tracked for every species back in time to the first ancestor of that lineage ... if evolution is true ...
But there is another mechanism to macroevolution that causes the nested hierarchies and that is cladogenesis, or divergent speciation:
The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.
Note that because each lineage going backwards in time has the same evolutionary constraints on the inheritance of traits parent populations that are seen in anagensis:
Population D will have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits.
Population E will also have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D.
Population F will also have some traits from A and B plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D and E and they will not have any traits from C or its descendants.
Population H will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E and F and they will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.
Population I will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E, F and H and they too will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.
This is the basics of a nested hierarchy:
  • C and its descendants D and E form a clade that is nested under B.
  • B and its descendants C (with its descendants D and E) and F form a clade that is nested under A.
  • G and its descendants H and I form a clade that is nested under A.
  • Finally A, B and G (with their descendants) form a clade that includes all the descendant populations in the pattern shown.
Again, this is the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution, and thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution.
... If it's just the fact that there seems to be a regularity in inheritance patterns from generation to generation, that seems rather trivial or obvious and of no real importance. ...
This pattern should also hold for kinds, each reproducing according to their kind, however they should terminate in the past with original created kinds rather than continue to fit into nested hierarchies until all life is related on one original populations (LUCA) as a prediction of the Theory of Evolution.
This creates a distinguishing test between the theory of evolution and the theory of descent from kinds.
... For one thing the only pattern of inheritance that could be observed is microevolution -- which you acknowledge -- so anything to do with the ToE, inheritance beyond the species, is all assumption, nothing you could demonstrate. And by the way, normal sexual recombination is quite enough to produce the changes you are talking about, you don't need mutations as well, so I'd guess the mutations are also an assumption and not actually observed.
The only mechanisms of macroevolution are microevolution and time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.
It is not assumption to see the evidence of nested hierarchies in the objective empirical evidence from the fossil record and the DNA/genetic record. It is not assumption to see that these records match in their formation of nested hierarchies, and it is not assumption to see that no stopping at created kinds is observed.
  • The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is congruent with the theory of evolution.
  • The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from kinds, because no multiple created kinds have singular starting points (creation) with no older ancestors that have common ancestors with other lineages.
Hardly trivial, IMHO.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added first line

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 10:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 06-23-2019 1:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:28 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 445 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:59 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:18 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 7:52 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 11:12 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 5:39 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 479 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 7:07 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 432 of 785 (855818)
06-23-2019 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Prophesy: she won't read that.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 433 of 785 (855828)
06-23-2019 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Percy
06-23-2019 7:55 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Everything in the quote box refers to the Creation.
And my argument is that there were TWO alleles per gene on the ark, and no more were ever needed nor are they needed now, to vary each Kind into all the different varieties..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Percy, posted 06-23-2019 7:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 5:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 435 by Percy, posted 06-24-2019 10:11 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 434 of 785 (855834)
06-23-2019 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Faith
06-23-2019 3:52 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
And my argument is that there were TWO alleles per gene on the ark, and no more were ever needed nor are they needed now, to vary each Kind into all the different varieties..
So every species that has more than two alleles per gene NOW has them because they are beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. That's a lot of beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations.
Thanks,
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 06-23-2019 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 435 of 785 (855860)
06-24-2019 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Faith
06-23-2019 3:52 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
And my argument is that there were TWO alleles per gene on the ark, and no more were ever needed nor are they needed now, to vary each Kind into all the different varieties.
Whether any allele is needed is not something you yourself could possibly know, but we'll leave that aside since it misses the point.
If there were four unique alleles per gene on the ark (two alleles per individual for a total of four, all different), and if there are more than four alleles today for some genes, then the new alleles could only have arisen through mutation.
That some genes have more than 200 alleles means there have not been enough generations since the flood for them to arise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 06-23-2019 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024