|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9219 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,773 Year: 1,095/6,935 Month: 376/719 Week: 18/146 Day: 18/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: It seems obvious that Percy has more of an idea than you do. If closely related species differ in chromosomal arrangements and in which genes they have (i.e. one or both species have genes that the other does not) then it is clear that something more than differing allele frequencies is involved. For instance even though horses and donkeys are close enough to produce (infertile) offspring, horses have one more chromosome pair than donkeys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: He is raising obviously relevant points. And you are not addressing them
quote: Which shows that you are the one who doesn’t understand. The fact that you are not talking about the different genes is the problem.
quote: And you claim that species are produced by that means alone. The fact that we see other, significant, differences is closely-related species - as well as the other points Percy made - are problems for that idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Those differences are obviously not just differences in allele frequency. And if they appear in species you’d consider to belong to the same kind - as they do - they certainly show that something more than differences in allele frequencies is going on. And of course the fact that animal breeding doesn’t produce new species is a major problem for your ideas. The fact that you try to brush these off as Percy not understanding is laughable. Either you can’t see the problems - which would show that you don’t understand - or you are being less than honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: So you changed the definition of species to include domestic breeds and that “proves” that actual species are the same thing. I’m sure you think that’s a clever semantic game, but it’s pretty obvious that that is all it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Apart from you, who else refers to domestic breeds as species ? If it is such a frequent use you should have examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: No. Because they aren’t. I’d call them “freaks of artificial selection”, personally.
quote: I suspect that it only works like that if multiple genes are involved. Though I am sure you’d agree on that,
quote: That is what you think but there is no hard evidence. Especially as nobody was breeding them for these traits, which weren’t visible in the original ten pairs. Recessive traits are not generally subject to strong selection because the heterozygotes have no advantage (this is also the reason why genetic diseases tend to hang around - heterozygotes have no disadvantage).
quote: That only adds to the problem. The new phenotype is only an advantage with the changed diet. So the lizards would have to change their diet before there was any selection. And you say that they could just have gone on eating their familiar diet.
quote: Domestic breeding does involve intense selection. The Pod Mrcau lizards don’t seem likely to have experienced that - and it would only be possible after the lizards changed their diet. And why would they do that if their usual food was freely available ? Edited by Admin, : Correct typo in last para: "see," => "seem"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I don’t think that rejecting natural selection is really going to help your case. It destroys any analogy to your pigeons which were the result of strong selection. And if you want to insist that it was just drift then you make your story even more implausible.
quote: How did it spread through the population when it offered no advantage, and when it is based on recessive traits as well ?
quote: It’s all an amazing coincidence ? I’m not ready to buy that when the information isn’t in.
quote: As I have said before I don’t think it is either.
quote: If there wasn’t time for the characteristics to spread through selection, then there certainly wasn’t time for them to spread by drift. Drift is slower than selection (as should be obvious). But then, I don’t think that selection is the answer - it’s just a better answer than drift.
quote: I don’t see anyone arguing that they did. I don’t believe it.
quote: A caecal valve seems to be a pretty minor modification, not a ”whole new digestive tract”. You would do better to argue that the changes to the head and the digestive system are independent. Two mutations arriving at just the right time is a lot less likely than one. Except that also undermines your idea that it was drift, and not selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Then why is breeding so bad at producing new species of animal ?
quote: The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.
quote: Not really. In fact the speed of the change suggests to me that it isn’t based on unobserved alleles becoming fixed in the population. The more so if we believe your claim that there was no selective pressure.
quote: In part it’s just you not noticing the differences - which is normal. The rest can be worked out by considering the differences between dogs and wolves - or the pigeons. Selective breeding concentrates variations which would otherwise be spread through the population. There is a lot of variation but but each individual has less variation from the norm than a dachshund is different from an Old English Sheepdog
quote: Funny how we’d be wrong if we did the same as you. Why couldn’t it be that you are wrong. But we don’t do the same - we point to evidence, while you just dismiss it. So I guess if anyone is wrong it pretty much has to be you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: It’s not an illusion. It’s a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: That is obviously not true. The definition of species is problematic but that is because we don’t use clear criteria like the inability to produce fertile offspring as the sole criterion. Obviously it doesn’t apply to species that only reproduce asexually, and it can’t be applied to extinct species, but that doesn’t make it any less natural a dividing line.
quote: And therein lies one of your problems with the evidence. Breeds will likely (in some cases certainly) be more “genetically depleted” than natural species. Yet they do not show this inability to interbreed.
quote: Would you like to back that up with evidence? Since there are no obvious problems with what the ToE actually says.
quote: And yet you have no evidence for this opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: The evidence should come from you, since it is your claim. And we have adequate evidence against your ideas. Even though you try to pretend otherwise. It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species. It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species. It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Odd how you keep failing to see the evidence in my post. Here it is again:
It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species.
It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species. It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: It is not at all ridiculous. Indeed the meanders of the canyon are clear evidence that it was carved by a river.
quote: That IS ridiculous. Catastrophic carving would not produce the meanders. And the Flood is just a myth anyway. You have a weird idea of what is “most likely”
quote: Really ? How do they survive being buried by tons of sediment - which is your idea of what the Flood did - and work their way up to the top of the stack ? (Fossil coral reefs only add to your problems)
quote: That’s the only sensible thing you said. There is no good answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: A lot of it is.
quote: You do know that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees has been measured ? Perhaps you would like to explain why the measurements are badly wrong? Or at least stop making ignorant objections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: So now the Grand Canyon formed after the assumed “scouring”. Pleas explain how it could form in the relatively few millennia you allow.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025