|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If it's not logical or intuitively obvious to you, sorry about that but it is to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Your assumption is irrational and you only believe it because of your anti-science prejudices. Sorry about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: If it's not logical or intuitively obvious to you, sorry about that but it is to me. But Wait...There's more. Not only is it not logical or intuitively obvious to you, it is refuted by ALL of the evidence from every discipline and line of research for the last several hundred years. You position is simply willfully ignorant and wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't have an anti-science point of view, I have an anti-evolution point of view. Evolution is not science even though a lot of science gets poured into it as if it were. Sad waste of time and resources. But I did arrive at my argument about microeolution simply from thinking about the facts and over the years I've posted plenty of actual evidence for it. Yup. I know I'm up against the establishment. Way it goes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That is incorrect, it is macroevolution(..) As a reminder, the discussion was about things like a few different species of mice that couldn't interbreed. This is clearly not what is usually meant by macroevolution.
This is a complete falsehood. Your personal dislike does not make it bogus or even tendentious, and it is dictated by the definition of species - a concept which predates the theory of evolution. Species doesn't have a definition, and it bothers me that people keep pretending it does. Species is a vague and nebulous concept, and while it certainly predates evolution, the definition of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding doesn't - this was only really formally defined in the 20th century. Note that Linneaus included multiple species of human; I don't think he believed them incapable of interbreeding. The Biological Species Concept is inapplicable to broad swathes of biological diversity, and it's rarely actually applied where it is applicable. There are countless examples where different species, different genera and sometimes even different families are not only capable of interbreeding; but engage in it regularly. No one suggests collapsing vast taxonomic groups into single species, because it would make it hard to discuss diversity. So the BSC is an idea that sounds good in principle, but when you test it against the natural world it turns out to be near useless for actual taxanomy. And yet for some reason people keep pretending this outdated idea is the default. It's not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Yes you do.
quote: Which is a form of anti-science view, and your objections are frequently anti-scientific, lacking both a sound base in theory or evidence.
quote: Faith, when will you learn? If you want to pretend that you don’t have an anti-science view don’t provide the proof that you do - in the same post.
quote: And that’s your anti-science view showing up again.
quote: No, you didn’t. You’ve avoided even finding out the facts that you would need to make the case.
quote: No you haven’t. You haven’t posted a single piece of evidence that was worth anything. You can’t even be bothered to look for evidence.
quote: You mean that you’re up against people who won’t be bullied into worshipping you. Which is your only tactic at this point,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That is taking it way back past the context. To the best of my knowledge speciation is considered to be macroevolution. And let us also note that you acknowledge that the mice are different species.
quote: Species may not have a hard definition, but your argument goes in the wrong direction. There are species which engage in hybridisation on occasion - but you would need to argue that populations that don’t interbreed are the same species. That is a rather different point. A condition may be sufficient without being necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Caffeine writes: Species doesn't have a definition, and it bothers me that people keep pretending it does. Species is a vague and nebulous concept, and while it certainly predates evolution, the definition of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding doesn't - this was only really formally defined in the 20th century. I'm really pleased you posted that. I was taught many years ago that species is a biological concept that real organisms find amusing. But we have to draw some lines somewhere just for tidiness sake. Even if we rub them out later.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Cuz the term implies macroevolution and all that's really going on is normal variation within a species which is microevolution. It just happens to be occurring at a level of genetic reduction so that the usual changes are dramatic enough to make continued interbreeding impossible for one reason or another, either genetic mismatch or geographic isolation or sexual selection. This makes no sense. If we're just reducing the genetic variation present in an initial parent population, then the alleles each subpopulation possesses were once part of the same population. A genetic mismatch implies something has changed in at least one of the subpopulations; otherwise joining them together would just mean mixing together the original population's alleles. You'd make the original species again. As we can see from real life examples, when you have actual subpopulations with greatly reduced genetic diversity, they are more likely to produce fertile young when mixed together than they are apart. The reason being that you have less individuals homozygous for harmful recessive alleles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
That is taking it way back past the context. To the best of my knowledge speciation is considered to be macroevolution. And let us also note that you acknowledge that the mice are different species. Depends who you ask. To quote one theoretical biologist (Adam Wilkins):
quote: My thinking is that it's daft to argue about whether something is macroevolution or not. The more important question is whether that in fact defines a useful concept at all. 'Evolutionary change greater than some arbitrary and undefined quantity' is not a worthwhile concept to define. If creationists want to argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn't; we shouldn't be arguing over the definition of the latter word. It's the responsibility of the creationists to provide a clear definition of what that actually means.
There are species which engage in hybridisation on occasion(...) There are lots of species that regularly and consistently engage in hybridisation. It's not an occasional and unusual thing, but pervasive, and plays an important part in evolution. I think this fact is underappreciated, which is one of the reasons I keep being crotchety about the subject.
(..)but you would need to argue that populations that don’t interbreed are the same species. That is a rather different point. A condition may be sufficient without being necessary. Okay, fair enough - I see what you're saying here. But I still think this line of argument leads us on a semantic tangent that puts the emphasis on the wrong place. We go on the endless circle of 'that doesn't count because they're still mice' and 'that's only microevolution' instead of focusing on the core of what's wrong with Faith's arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh goody, the taxonomic system is getting a much-needed drubbing.
No one suggests collapsing vast taxonomic groups into single species, As I recall I do. Interbredding isn't my standard though. As for diversity I'm happy with "subspecies."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was taught many years ago that species is a biological concept that real organisms find amusing. But we have to draw some lines somewhere just for tidiness sake. Even if we rub them out later. Oh nonsense. It's not all that hard to place organisms into their rightful morphological camps, which I think should be called Species. The difficulties are fairly rare really. This idea that the species all blur together is an artifact of the ToE. Without that interference it is not all that hard to classify creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The trouble is that higher taxonomic groupings are, if anything, worse. Species may turn out to be rather fuzzy, but they are as good as anything. Besides Faith’s approach to macroevolution is whatever it is, I’m against it - she doesn’t care what it means. So any definition will do, and the definition which includes speciation certainly appears to be used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If we're just reducing the genetic variation present in an initial parent population, then the alleles each subpopulation possesses were once part of the same population. Of course but you have new frequencies of them and sometimes many have been lost. You have a lot more homozygosity for instance.
A genetic mismatch implies something has changed in at least one of the subpopulations; An increase in homozygosity at different loci could cause such problems.
otherwise joining them together would just mean mixing together the original population's alleles. You'd make the original species again. As a matter of fact you don't because you are mixing new sets of allele frequencies and that does produce something different than the original population if you mix them all together.
As we can see from real life examples, when you have actual subpopulations with greatly reduced genetic diversity, they are more likely to produce fertile young when mixed together than they are apart. If they CAN interbreed and reproduce together that would probably be true. The hybrids would be stronger in many ways than the separated populations.
The reason being that you have less individuals homozygous for harmful recessive alleles. Makes sense. But the homozygous genes don't have to be harmful. The cheetah and the elephant seal and "purebreds" all have many fixed (homozygous) loci. It's practically the definition of a purebred. In dogs this doesn't prevent interbreeding but it does in many species. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Oh nonsense. It's not all that hard to place organisms into their rightful morphological camps, which I think should be called Species. The difficulties are fairly rare really. This idea that the species all blur together is an artifact of the ToE. Without that interference it is not all that hard to classify creatures. You think all birds are one species. Your understanding of biological diversity is incoherent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024