|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But Faith, you made that up. Cheetahs went through a very severe bottleneck but you’re the only one who claims that it changed them much.
quote: Nobody agreed with you Faith. There is no moving the goal posts. That’s another thing you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:? I didn’t say that you made that up. I explained that what you made up was the idea that the bottleneck caused significant morphological changes.
I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah Cheetahs were cheetah’s before the bottleneck. Your idea that the bottleneck produced the cheetah is an invention. I know because I asked you for evidence and you had none (and I looked and found none myself),
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I don’t think you can call it learning when you are making it up. You haven’t made any serious effort to determine Kind boundaries.
quote: And how would you know that? You haven’t discussed the actual genetics at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So how did that work out for elephant seals? Oh, right. It didn’t, did it? I guess that it doesn’t really work quite the way you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The fact that elephant seals are still elephant seals despite the bottleneck. The change you expect didn’t happen. That should be obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Assuming for the sake of argument that your Kind boundaries exist you would still need to look at the genetics to find where they are. You didn’t even try. If you had properly thought about it you would realise that. You obviously didn’t.
quote: Obviously I do get it because mutations can and do make a difference.
quote: Then the evidence indicates that there is only one Kind. The twin nested hierarchies are the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But you think that cheetahs changed a lot. But the fossils disagree, according to Wikipedia the major bottleneck is dated to 100,000 years ago (by genetic evidence) but fossils of modern cheetahs appear 1.9 million years ago - and other cheetah species go back twice as far. You have no evidence that cheetahs changed significantly. It is only an assumption. And to accuse us of moving the goalposts when our position has not changed at all is ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you have no idea iif your assertion is true:
I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah Message 724 Funny how you tried to pass it off as a fact when - as you now admit - it’s just something you made up. And still stranger that when Tangle pointed out the conventional view, you responded with this:
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post. Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts. Message 729 How can disagreement with your speculation - a disagreement that has been voiced since you first introduced it here be considered to be moving the goalposts ?
quote: That might be true if you weren’t claiming otherwise. If the cheetah wasn’t the prime evidence for your idea that reduction in genetic diversity was the driver of morphological change. But we can’t even say that there was any change beyond a reduction in variation, and sine rare traits becoming common - and that is a long way from the bottleneck creating the cheetah or being responsible for it’s special features (which we know isn’t true).
quote: In other words you don’t care if one of your major claims, your primary evidence for your idea is even true. You openly admit to not caring about the truth. So thanks for the proof that your gratuitous attack in Message 697 was a hypocritical lie. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which does not change the fact that you claimed that the bottleneck essentially created the cheetah and falsely accused evolutionists of moving the goalposts when Tangle disagreed. Nor does it change the fact that this assertion was your main evidence for the idea that genetic depletion alone was the main cause of evolutionary change. A view which was obviously implausible in the first place. And in fact a bottleneck - by definition - will not produce any phenotypic variations that weren’t at least possible before it occurred. And since a bottleneck will favour the more common alleles it isn’t even particularly likely to produce phenotypic variations that were unknown before the bottleneck. Compounding your dishonesty by trying to sweep it under the carpet is the sort of behaviour that earned you your bad reputation here.
quote: It was relevant enough for you to try and pass it off as a fact and even try to use it as evidence. Funny how it suddenly became irrelevant.
quote: But this is not relevant to the discussion because it is entirely consistent with mainstream views. Let us also note that the dating of the bottleneck is based on the accumulation of variations in the DNA since it occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No he didn’t. He just disagreed with an assertion you made. One that you now say is irrelevant. And I still don’t see why you had to invent that claim about moving the goalposts (more accurately I don’t see an honest reason).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Replying to Message 479
quote: You can say that over and over again, but it will still be false. The fossil do support evolution.
quote: That is certainly not true.
quote: I guess you’re easily impressed, since everyone knows that. They don’t have little tags saying that they were deposited by a flood either.
quote: And since this is not at all the order we see, we can be sure that a worldwide flood did not do it. Dinosaurs for instance are a hugely diverse group ranging from huge herbivores to tiny insectivores. Yet (apart from birds) they are only found in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous systems, not earlier or later, no matter what size or shape they are.
quote: But this is not at all the order that we see. Fish continue on to the present day. Early mammals are found with dinosaurs, as are early birds. The great marine reptiles are found in the same geological systems as dinosaurs while marine mammals like whales only turn up in later-deposited strata.
quote: I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t expect to find whales on high ground.
quote: Again I point out that mutations and natural selection are observed - and there is further evidence which strongly favours evolution.
quote: To the best of my knowledge only trace amounts are detected which could be added in situ, or by contamination at any stage between being dug up and processed. If you have serious evidence to support this claim I’d like to see it.
quote: I wonder why you assume that the other evidence of age should be thrown out. It would not be scientific to do so.
quote: Evolution is science. It doesn’t require faith to disagree with the ignorant teachings of your cult.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024