|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This has popped up on facebook, posted by some IDologist on "Daily Wire":
quote: quote: Computer science is not biology (he even says he is not a biologist in the video), and math cannot change reality. There are a number of PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times) in the video, and the monitor, Peter Robinson, has no apparent knowledge of biology either. Other participants are David Berlinski and Steven Meyer, both of the Discovery Institute. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Reduce width of YouTube video.by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What upsets me is when IDologists make IDotic arguments.
Firsts the probability argument. They say it is a 1 in 1070 probability to assemble a protein molecule by molecule. Let's cut that in half -- each half then has a 1 in 1035 probability to assemble by their argument. Now reassemble them: there is a 1 in 4 chance of making the "right" connection so that's:
(1 x 1035 + 1 x 1035) x 1/4 = 5 x 1034 repeat for each half segment and you get:
{(1 x 1017.5 + 1 x 1017.5) x 1/4} x 1/4 = 3.9528 x 1016 This is a significant reduction in the probability of actually assembling a protein, and quite obviously there are a large number of ways for molecules to assemble rather than one at a time, making the probability a meaningless argument. Second Gelernter argues that it is impossible to make all the changes at the correct time during the development of a fetus to change a sheep into a horse ... in one generation. This is known as the hopeful monster concept and it is a strawman argument: evolution does not theorize speciation happening this way, and biologists would be quite surprised to see such an event. When arguing against evolution it behooves you to thoroughly understand evolution theory and processes, rather than use misinformation and misrepresentations. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Remove spurious "^" Edited by RAZD, : Note to admin: I add the "spurious ^" intentionally so that when the numbers are copied they don't look like 1035 or 1070.by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Meanwhile they rake in money from their book sales to the gullible.
Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What upsets me is when anti-IDologists make strawman arguments. Curiously, I am happy to be corrected, but you have not really done that yet. Please supply your supporting material. Especially if you have it in print. I found the video a real snooze-fest of PRATTS and misinformation, so I may have mixed some of it up. Videos are not the best conveyors of information, and I prefer print versions. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The 1 in 10^70* probability has nothing to do with assembling a protein. It is not relating to any molecule by molecule assembly issue. Go read Gelernter's article. Even in his layman's terms, he explains what the probability is referring to quite well. Curiously I searched through the video to the part in question, and I was slightly incorrect. Starting at 12:25 is they are talking about assembling a protein, not molecule by molecule but with 1 of 20 amino acids adding them one by one, and the number they give is 1 in 1 x 10^77 (not 1 in 1 x 10^70). Gelernter at 13:20+ talks of building a string of beads one by one adding an emerald, a ruby and an opal ... using the DNA code to make the protein. So now we in essence have the probability of assembling the DNA with that code, and still in the molecule by molecule calculation mode, given the context of the discussion. So I believe the critique I made of the improbability calculation is still valid. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The impetus for the video was due to an essay by David Galernter in the Claremont Review of Books. Gelernter's essay is at:
Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books
Thanks for the link.
With regards to the probability argument, the primer to it starts under the heading "Mutations" where he talks about creating a protein from a modest-sized, 150 long amino acid chain. Technically you should be providing quotes instead of just link references. I get tired of old PRATTs rehashed in emperor's new cloths, and misinformation. Note this misinformation:
quote: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model, so this statement is false. And he goes religious ...
quote: More misinformation:
quote: ... but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve. What that new habitat was, occurred when the ocean pH changed (due to oxygen being produced by algae iirc) and it became possible to make calcite shells. The Cambrian fossils are almost all shelled creatures, the pre-Cambrian fossils do not have shells. Having shells provides an obvious survival advantage, and those that had shells had an open habitat to inhabit: rapid evolution. Standard. Darwinian.
quote: Except they are no longer missing and more are being found every year. Way to keep up with the times. Getting to your referred section:
quote: One by one. As he further explicates on the video ... The old improbable probability numbers game/s ...
quote: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way; mutations occur in a number of ways of many different length segments from whole gene copying to single inserts. The numbers prove nothing, and never will, because the model is wrong. One example of how biology actually works is polyploidy which results in new species in one generation. Mostly found in plants, though it does occur in animals. Other more standard examples of speciation are also known. It seems that nature has no problem contradicting the mathematical model ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added thread linkby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is also quite telling where this article was published. Claremont Review of Books is the journal of the Claremont Institute a very radical right wing propaganda outfit. I found the moderator to be the most believable in his ignorance ... but he sure threw a lot of softballs ... Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Off topic, but... ... but it has bearing on the assumption of authority by the author making the claim. It speaks to the basis of his argument. Being founded on a falsehood, the argument is suspect.
RAZD writes: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model, Where? Several places. A quick google turned up these sites:
quote: quote: You'll have to read the article to see the actual species involved, I omitted them to save space. Those who are truly interested will read the articles in their entirety, and those who aren't will ignore them.
On topic (the referred section) -
RAZD writes: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way; First, what specifically are you saying is fabricated? The probability numbers. See the old improbable probability problem. You can't calculate probabilities without knowing all the possibilities first. If you assume this, then obviously if your end result seems impossible when it has in fact occurred the error is in the assumed numbers. I have two di -- a pair of dice -- what is the probability that I will throw/roll a seven in one try?
Secondly, can you be more specific about what "way" biology supposedly doesnt operate by? The numbers used only refer to one specific type of mutation - a single replacement mutation. Biology operates on several different types of mutations, from single replacement to full gene duplication, many involving multiple segments inserted or deleted. This vastly increases the numbers of ways DNA is modified in the real world.
Ya. So? That there are myriad ways mutations can occur....is irrelevant. When evaluating the mathematics of evolution, that mutations do and will occur is inherent to the argument; it is built in and assumed. I do not think you understand the argument. When you only include one specific mutation in your calculations and ignore all the other "myriad ways mutations" occur you are obviously not counting all the possible mutations. It is hardly irrelevant but very germane to the issue of accuracy and appropriateness of the number fabrications. Note that most of the examples of observed speciation involve massive copying of DNA segments rather than single point mutations: it is rather obviously relevant. I do not think you understand the critique of the argument.
Then perhaps off-topic again, I have to ask about this diddy?
but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve.
What are you talking about? What is a "void in habitat"? ... A void is an empty niche in the ecology. The ecology is composed of all species in a habitat in a quasi-balance of survival and reproductive abilities, not just in predator-prey arms races but also in like species competitions. If one of the species can take advantage of a new habitat niche that is not currently occupied then it has more resources for survival and reproduction than previously, giving it an advantage. This offers more opportunity for speciation to occur as the selective pressure is lowered. This is actually observed in the case of foraminifera:
quote: Foram mass death during the extinction event, followed by an "explosion" of new species to fill the void. Similarly, the Cambrian "explosion" of new species types that first evolve protective shells occurred because the niche for species with protective shells was empty.
... Evolution doesn't care if there is a "void in habitat", it doesn't have any forward view, so it cannot occur any more rapidly to fill anything. It is unguided. Wrong. The rate of evolution is "guided" by the selection pressure: low pressure, more variations survive and reproduce; high pressure, fewer variations survive and reproduce. In an ecology in equilibrium/stassis the rates of evolution for each species will stabilize around an equilibrium value, but is a disturbed ecology some rates will increase and some will decrease (leading ultimately to extinctions).
And wait, so diminishing selection allows more survival and evolving? How does that work, since the selection is the very thing that supposedly provides the surviving and evolving? Let's start with this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Now consider these extremes:
Case 1 will provide a large expanding population with many diverse variations, case 2 will provide only one variation -- which population will evolve more, generation after generation? Which population will thus have a higher rate of evolution? Selection pressure is not static. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : formatby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've pointed this out before, but nobody will believe me: I've pointed this out before, but nobody will believe me:
Evolution never stops. The same evolutionary processes are constantly at work, just with differing results. The processes that cause changes in the population in a new or changing environment are the same processes that keep a population from changing in an unchanging environment.
For those with a background in engineering or as a technician, it basically acts like a negative-feedback control loop. The further you are from the set-point (eg, a specified voltage, the optimal phenotype for that environment) the harder it will drive you back to that set-point. When you are at the set-point, then the exact same mechanism keeps you at that set-point. So even when there's no change, that's still evolution at work.
When the ecology is stable, in equilibrium, then selection is to maintain that median position because it is successful. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I had a reply ready yesterday, but it was a little muddled and I wasn't happy with it, and while I was fiddling with it I lost it. I hope this is better ... I incorporated some of DWise1's comments.
In higher selective pressure environments populations will grow more slowly but will speciate from the ancestor as they adapt to the selective pressures which, over time, lowers those pressures on the growing population. This would be anagenesis as the high selective pressure creates a narrow opportunity for divergence. We also know from some experiments that high stress can lead to more mutations as the immune system is suppressed and control systems over cell structure weakens. So high selective pressure, increase in mutation rate, narrow selection of mutations for survival/reproductive fitness benefits, population changes -- bell curve narrows and moves to fit the ecology.
In lower selective pressure environments populations grow larger with greater genetic diversity within the species. and spreads into more marginal environments as population growth increases competition for resources (selective pressure increases). The genetic diversity provides possible benefits to access those marginal habitats and this provides opportunities for cladogenesis, the division of the population into daughter species. Low pressure, less stress, moderate mutation rate but more open selection, the bell curve spreads and covers more diverse ecologies. The amount/number of mutations selected is higher than in the high selective pressure scenario because there is more opportunity for survival and reproduction.
I question a rate of evolution. As noted in Message 19:
quote: An increased rate of speciation would be an increased rate of evolution in my opinion.
Is an increase of genetic diversity within a population a higher rate of evolution? Is the number of speciation events the higher rate? One of the problems I've had with the genetic molecular clocks is the assumption of a constant rate of mutation and a constant rate of evolution. As yet I've seen no evidence of the and have no reason to accept this assumption. If we use this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Then the rate of evolution would be the rate at which these changes take place, the rate at which mutations are selected/incorporated into the population gene pool. This would be greater under low selection pressure than under high selection pressure. In stasis conditions evolution still occurs but selection is to maintain the population, bell curve, in the current fitness level. The rate of evolution would be low -- neutral and minor variations would not be deselected -- and little visible change would be observed.
I know we love to say this but I don’t think evolution has a rate. Respectfully disagree. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... If we use this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Then the rate of evolution would be the rate at which these changes take place, the rate at which mutations are selected/incorporated into the population gene pool. ... So I've done a little more research on this:
quote: Interesting discussion of Evolvability, effects of koinophilia and issues of the Fossil record (including Punc-Eek) ... but they give no calculation of this variable. Disappointing. Should have a link to:
quote: Phillip D. Gingerich prefers to use haldanes:
quote: So we have two measurements of the rate of evolution in the literature. Both based on observed morphological changes. Basing one on genetics could be more difficult as it is hard to tell when mutations get expressed in the phenotype. There is the rate of mutation, which I also think is variable, but then we need to know when mutations are expressed in a way that affects selection (survival, reproduction). Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is where I have a problem. In both of these treatments evolution is viewed like it is goal oriented. That was Gingerich's problem with Haldane's darwin measurement, that and that it implied millions of years. Both are historic measurements of what occurred, because they are based on fossil evidence.
Whatever numbers, in darwins or in haldanes, one achieves are arbitrary and meaningless. It took X million years for this A. whosits to grow a widget from # cm ## cm.And it took Y million years for the B. thingies to double the size its whatever. The haldane metric is based on generations and is dimensionless. Gingerich also notes that you can have different results for different traits in the populations.
Neither of these gives a rate to evolution but just a length of time to go from this version to that version. And this is not just semantics since it was not evolution that changed but the inputs to its processes that changed. How would you define a rate of evolution?
My view. Evolution ran, not at any rate, but just ran day by day, generation by generation, for both lineages, but one took longer than the other for some various reasons dealing with chemistry, allele pool, environment, fecundity, luck, and circumstance. So they did evolve at different rates, but the formula/s don't account for all the necessary inputs? If we consider punk-eek, then it is fairly obvious that there are different rates of evolution/change involved.
quote: Is this just semantics on my part? Is the "evolution" of the fruit fly "faster" than that of the elephant? Or does evolution just plod along dependant on the inputs? Partly. If we look at evolution over a time period some species evolve faster because they go through more generations (why fruit flys and bacteria are used in experiments). But if we look at evolution from generation to generation the picture is not so clear. Personally I think evaluating the rate of evolution gives us the ability to see how those inputs affect the process, to what degree each input has effect. And I think haldanes are better indicators of this, being based on generations rather than set amounts of time. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Even if mutations galore increased the genetic diversity enormously in a population or gene/allele pool, even to the point that every trait is changed for every individual and every gene has so many alleles you can't identify them, what you'd have is a motley crew of individuals that differ wildly from one another in all those traits, some large, some small, some with purple fur, some with scales instead of fur, and every possible combination. Clearly it doesn't ever happen. But if it did some particular number of individuals would have to be selected in order to get a new breed or species, that is, for evolution of the population as a whole to occur. Which would have to happen to get a new species. Nope. That is not how evolution works. btw you might be interested in koinophilia ...
quote: In a stable ecology where populations are at an equilibrium, selection will tend to favor the most average phenotypes, as they are the best fit for that stable equilibrium condition. It is only when that stable equilibrium is disturbed or the population expands into a new ecology that selection will shift towards varieties/mutations that provide benefits for the new conditions.
And selection eliminates. If you get an isolated new population of all these individuals with all their new characteristics that population will eventually blend those characteristics together until a particular phenotype emerges and it's got a look of its own: a new breed or species. That's what selection does. It will eventually blend tog3ether whatever proportions of traits are in the new set of individuals, their new collection of gene/allele frequencies, and eliminate others from the population. (Of course if mutations really did occur at such a rate as I describe it above you could never ever get a population with its own peculiar characteristics, never a breed let alone a pure breed, which already defeats the whole idea but anyway...) Unless you want to say that getting only a population made up of mutts is evolution, because that's all you'll ever get; you'll never get the specialized new phenotypes ordinarily recognized as a new species or breed, you know a whole population with the same characteristics, a whole population of trilobites that look alike, a whole population of raccoons with identical markings, a whole breed of greyhounds or chihuahuas or Great Danes, a whole population of little green men with antennae on their heads. Again this is not how evolution works. It doesn't blend characteristics. It selects those that are more fit for survival or more attractive for reproduction.
Not only is there no "rate of evolution," there is no evolution as defined by the ToE. Except that it has been defined and measured ... as defined by the (actual) ToE (and not Faith-0-lution). Remember the Pelycodus chart ...
quote: The slopes of those lines show the rates of evolution for each generation, and the divide at the top shows divergence with one group evolving more rapidly to smaller size.
What you call speciation could never happen, which is a population with its own overall characteristics that clearly differentiate it from its parent population. ... Nope. What biological science defines as speciation has been observed to occur, so obviously you are wrong. Both in your definition of speciation (Faith-0-lution) and your denial of actual observed instances of speciation.
... (Of course it would have sufficiently diminished genetic diversity to make further evolution impossible, but anyway.... According to Faith-0-lution, but not according to reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I rarely use the concept of selection as in natural selection, I think selection is what brings about new subspecies/breeds but that it's usually random. Faith O lution 101. Wrong on three counts(in one sentence ... WOW). First, selection occurs with every generation:
Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Selection can either be for new traits -- ones beneficial in non-equilibrium populations -- or for old traits: koinophilia in populations in equilibrium with their ecology and the ecology is stable.
quote: This shows strong selection for maintaining the status quo. Second, selection does not (on it's own) bring about "new subspecies/breeds" as other factors are involved, including mutations that provide the raw material for selection. Third, selection is not random. Mutations are random, but selection is a response to ecological constraints: the ones who survive to breed are selected and the ones that do not survive to breed are deselected (see diagram at start of message).
And there's your favorite Pelycodus again, you do love that creature. And of course I have to answer the way I always do that they were merely buried in the Flood, so that I object to the idea that different sizes at different levels argues for evolution when it's just where they happened to end up. We get Great Danes at the same time we get chichuahuas from the same dog gene pool after all, various sizes are options in the genome of any creature that can be selected and isolated at any time in the present. And besides it may only be the creature at different ages too. And this regurgitated comment still fails to explain the sorting by radiometric age, the sorting by sizes -- especially considering the split at the top and it still fails to explain a purported flood when the evidence does not show one.
Oh and one more thing. Of course selection itself doesn't blend characteristics, what I meant was that the new population of selected individuals with their many different characteristics would over time in reproductive isolation blend together into a phenotype that becomes characteristic of the population, as a new breed or subspecies. The selection merely isolates a particular collection of characteristics. Which sounds like koinophilia again, rather standard evolutionary process for new populations, nothing radical of fanciful there. I would say "The selection merely consolidates a particular collection of characteristics (with better fitness for the new ecology)." You might also be interested in Zygosity. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes of course. I've made the point myself many times that the wildebeests of Africa are quite homogeneous in their huge numbers, the only clear variation being a separated/isolated herd called the "blue wildebeests." These are also homogenous as a herd, but this herd is characterized by smaller size, different shaped antlers and a bluish tinge to the hide, a result of the combination of some portion of the larger population's becoming reproductively isolated. The isolation would have lasted long enough to bring out this new set of characteristics from the new set of gene frequencies collectively possessed by the founding individuals. Curiously I think you have these switched:
quote: quote: So the black wildebeests were likely a 6th subspecies before they began evolving into a new species while isolated from the parent blue wildebeests parent population. Not the other way around as you have it. The hybrids do show interbreeding is possible, with usually fertile but less fit results (as compared to horses and donkeys that generally have sterile hybrids). So technically they are not as far along as horses/donkeys in the process of complete reproductive isolation, but the "differences in social behaviour and habitats" are likely to keep them apart and continue the process. They are effectively different species for all intents and purposes.
Yes I know the ToE assumes a purposeful selection, I think that's very rare, that's all. Not purposeful (ie not directed), it is a feedback result of the ecological opportunities and challenges: some survive to reproduce and others do not. Those that do pass on their genes, those that do not can't pass on their genes.
You don't need to keep arguing with me you know, we're only going to go around in the usual circles, I just like to interject my point of view from time to time so it's on the record. ... And I'll keep pointing out your mistakes, misinformation and fantasies so that they are on record. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024