Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


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 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 451 of 785 (855897)
06-24-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by PaulK
06-24-2019 2:39 PM


That's just a lot of assertive bla-bla. I'm going to try to keep the focus on what RAZD says anyway, but if you are going to interject, at the least you need to give evidence of your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 2:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 4:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 452 of 785 (855899)
06-24-2019 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by PaulK
06-24-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
And you do not explain why more distant populations lose the ability to interbreed. That is what makes it a ring species rather than a collection of subspecies.
The inability to interbreed by the last population is most likely the result of its severe genetic depletion after so many losses through the earlier series of populations. Those earlier populations in the ring may also lose that ability but not necessarily for genetic reasons.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 453 of 785 (855900)
06-24-2019 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Faith
06-24-2019 3:56 PM


quote:
That's just a lot of assertive bla-bla.
Less so than your post. Besides I am recapping points already covered in past discussion.
quote:
...but if you are going to interject, at the least you need to give evidence of your claim
Your post was notably free of evidence. Of course I did do better than you did, showing that ring species support macroevolution and explaining why breeding is not so good a model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 3:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 454 of 785 (855902)
06-24-2019 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
06-24-2019 4:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
quote:
The inability to interbreed by the last population is most likely the result of its severe genetic depletion after so many losses through the earlier series of populations
That seems rather unlikely to me. What makes it more likely than mutations reducing interfertility ? Do you have any evidence or is it just your opinion ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 4:00 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 455 of 785 (855906)
06-24-2019 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:28 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
I can set the brightness on my computer to dim the bright whiteness. This also extends battery life on laptops.
It should be somewhere in your settings -- what version operating system do you use?
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 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 456 of 785 (855907)
06-24-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:23 PM


Saying it's not relevant to the Creation model is a pathetic excuse for your failure at explanation . The nested hierarchy is a fundamental property of life in any model. It's critically relevant to any model. Goddidit is not an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 457 of 785 (855908)
06-24-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:34 PM


And casinos lose big bucks all the time. Oh, wait...
Random events create recognizable patterns all the time. Common descent must produce a nested hierarchy no matter what causes the changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 458 of 785 (855909)
06-24-2019 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:34 PM


You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations.
Yeah, ya can.
The whole point of this part of your discussions with PaulK is that those random mutations as part of the ToE is the only logical and evidenced explanation there is.
You are unable to provide an alternative explanation of how separate "kind" creation could possibly manifest itself as the patterns of common ancestry we see in the world.
Or are you going to claim common ancestry is caused by mutant genes that don't do anything?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2019 4:54 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

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


(2)
Message 459 of 785 (855911)
06-24-2019 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by AZPaul3
06-24-2019 4:44 PM


Just to clarify. While the origin of the sequence in question may be a random mutation the pattern - the species it is found in - is explained by common ancestry.
E.g. ERVs - the origin is a viral insertion event, but after that it’s just ordinary vertical transmission, parent to offspring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2019 4:44 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 460 of 785 (855916)
06-24-2019 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Continuing with your Message 431\\
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.
Of course. This is the normal result of sexual recombination from generation to generation. But this does require some degree of isolation from the parent population because if interbreeding is maintained among all the generations although there should be some change it shouldn't be dramatic because the parent's genes are always getting redistributed into the mix. This wouldn't be the case with human populations, though, but it should be the case with most animal populations.
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.
When you give processes a formal name it may imply something more than is actually going on. All you are describing seems to be the normal effect of sexual recombination within a large population. It does produce genetic and phenotypic changes from generation to generation. But even this process is the result of some form of selection or isolation, i.e. subtraction of some genetic material allowing other combinations to be expressed. But in a large population where each generation will interbreed among themselves there's going to be a lot of redistribution of the genes from the parent population anyway. I guess this is a form of "evolution" but of course a mild form of microevolution. Naming it implies something more than that: Phyletic speciation, anagenesis, or arbitrary speciation, these terms imply something more is going on than just the normal changes from generation to generation. It contributes to the mystifications that give the ToE a greater impression of scientific standing than it deserves. It implies a lot more than is really happening. The term "speciation" suggests the usual ToE assumption that if we just keep going and going and going we'll get s completely new species rather than just new variations on the same species.
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.
I suppose you could. I tend to focus on the split-off daughter populations, usually one at a time but they could branch too, many could form at once for that matter but I usually just describe the effect on one such isolated population, BUT ANYWAY, while it starts out with a new set of gene frequencies those will only form a different look for the new populatoiln after some period of breeding among themselves, which I assume could be tracked from generation to generation as you suggest, showing changes with each generation. Like the blue wildebeests that must have wandered away from the main herd of black wildebeests and after some generations of breeding in isolation produced their bluish hide and smaller body type and different kind of antlers. That's all it takes, RAZD, you don't need mutations, all you need is isolation of a new set of gene frequencies to get interesting new "species" or variations.
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.
Mutations not needed to develop new traits, only sexual recombination of whatever alleles were inherited from the parents.
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.
Again no mutations are needed. I think it's a mistake to say there would be "fewer ancestral traits" because all that is happening is the recombination from generation to generation of those same ancestral traits. The second generation traits which were already the result of recombination are no less traits from the ancestral generation too, but each new generation recombines them all in new ways.
YOU ASSUME MUTATIONS WHERE MUTATIONS ARE NOT NEEDED.
The third generation of descendants would have even fewer ancestral (P1) traits,
That just means some of them would have remained as they were in the first generation unchanged by recombination.
ome 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.
Mutations not necessary, you get change just from sexual recombination from generation to generation.
The parent population would have P1 traits, but no P2, P3 or P4 traits
Yes but all that means is that they lack the particular combinations that would produce those traits. They have the same genes and the same alleles as all the other generations but in different combinations.
The second generation of descendants would have some P1 traits and some P2 traits but no P3 or P4 traits
Yes, some that were passed on without being changed by recombination and some that were changed.
The third generation of descendants would have fewer P1 traits, some P2 traits and some P3 traits but no P4 traits.
Yes, some that were passed on from the previous generations unchanged and some new ones due to new combinations.
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.
Uh, it shows no evidence of the ToE, it's nothing but normal variation within a genome/species/population, otherwise sometimes known as microevolution. This will go on all the time no matter what. It's quite consistent with the creation model and certainly doesn't give any evidence for the ToE.
This can be tracked for every species back in time to the first ancestor of that lineage ... if evolution is true .
Certainly. "Of that lineage." Nothing to do with the ToE, just normal variation that's built into each species.
Although it's not quite as evident where there isn't branching, or an actual isolated population, there is still the process of selection or isolation going on in each generation that "selects" some combinations over others to create the observed changes. And again, no mutations are needed for this to happen and my guess is that they just about never enter into it, I won't say never but it's got to be so rare as to be just about nonexistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2019 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 461 of 785 (855917)
06-24-2019 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by AZPaul3
06-24-2019 4:44 PM


No need for mutation, there's plenty of variation built into the genome of each species to account for all the phenomena that wrongly get attributed to mutations just because they seem to be needed by the ToE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2019 4:44 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2019 5:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 466 by Taq, posted 06-24-2019 6:09 PM Faith has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 462 of 785 (855920)
06-24-2019 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Faith
06-24-2019 5:20 PM


Then what is it in creation theory that could cause the appearance of such deep common ancestry?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 6:56 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 463 of 785 (855921)
06-24-2019 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Faith
06-24-2019 5:20 PM


showing how many variations are possible without mutations
Here's a Mendelian square to express the range of skin color that Adam and Eve could have possessed in their genes. It doesn't matter how many genes might be involved, the range is probably fairly well expressed in this square. Adam and Eve themselves would most likely have had a medium shade of skin, somewhere in the center block of squares.
The point is simply to illustrate that in only two people a huge range of variations could be contained in their genome. Of course with each subsequent generation as a particular skin tone is selected the others will not be expressed in that indivudal, so you get the lighter and darker races as they migrate and form separate populations.
https://wp-media.patheos.com/...omain/sites/8/2015/04/1.jpeg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 464 of 785 (855922)
06-24-2019 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
Yes, a lot of mutations have arisen. Most of them doing nothing at all. And your point is?
You've been quoting nothing from me in your replies, causing you to lose the plot.
Your original claim was that in creationism God's involvement insofar as genomes are concerned ended at creation. You forgot that according to creationism God got involved again during the flood, when he reduced the maximum number of alleles per gene to four (more for clean species). That was your first error.
It is true that most new mutations have no effect, but this isn't about new mutations in the current generation that occur in non-active places in the genome. This is about mutations affecting active alleles that have arisen since the creationist flood and spread through entire populations. They've been around a while and been selected for, so there must be some beneficial effect. Claiming that the additional alleles beyond four have mostly no effect was your second error.
By the way, not only is your claim nonsensical that alleles since the flood have mostly no effect, it's impossible for you to know that. For genes with more than four alleles it's impossible for you to know which are original and which are new since the flood - they don't come with labels. Even if you knew the precise effect of each and every allele, you still don't know which are original and which not, so it isn't possible for you to show that only original alleles have an effect. You're claiming knowledge you couldn't possibly have. That was your third error.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 465 of 785 (855923)
06-24-2019 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:23 PM


Faith writes:
Saying it's not relevant to the creation model is not the same thing as saying I can't explain it. I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything.
That doesn't explain it.
Your model would require the chimp and human genome to be identical at the beginning of creation. We know that this can't be the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a separate ape and human kind as you claim there had to be.
Therefore, the genomes had to start out differently within the creation model. It can't be due to mutations. Therefore, you need to explain why we see specific patterns in those differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 6:58 PM Taq 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