Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 211 of 244 (282283)
01-29-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Cold Foreign Object
01-28-2006 2:00 PM


This thread is about Chimpanzee-human gap
My preceding post was my conclusion. You still don't get it even though you claim to.
I see that you have examined my mind and have come to an infallible conclusion as to what I get. I 'get' that evolution and creationism are essentially two opposite views. That was basically all you posted, if you want to add anymore views on the EvC debate, a new topic is probably called for. This thread is very narrowly focussed.
It means hominid evolution is ridiculous. 5 million years !
We've covered this, relative gaps. See Message 129 for further details:
quote:
We share 3,996,000,000 years of similarity and only 4,000,000 years of dissimilarity (in the context of years that's 99.9% closeness)...It's a bit like saying brachiosaurus wasn't large because the blue whale is much larger.
It means evos have no choice because Creationism is not an option. Therefore Lewontin's "we take the side of science....absurd constructs" kicks in.
Ray, there are two points of view about what the Chimp-Human DNA gap means. We have previously agreed that this is what we are talking about. See Message 171. So far the creationist's side is 'common designer'. On the evos side we have 'if common ancestry then chimpanzees are the most related'.
Now to continue developing the evo argument, we need to discuss cladistics. I want to discuss the chimp-human thing. I really don't want to discuss your opinion on what you think my beliefs/motivations whatever are. I'm only interested in exploring what the human-chimp DNA gap means to the two sides of the debate.
As such we start with our assumption that all species share a common ancestor.
Ordinary atheist philosophy.
The assumption predetermines the conclusion and insulates the conclusion from falsification. This is called arguing in a circle; your mind is already made up.
I can't believe we have to go over this again Ray.
Assumption: All species share a common ancestor
Conclusion: Chimpanzees are the most closely related
The assumption does not predetermine the conclusion one bit, not at all. Any species could end up being the most closely related DNA wise. I've gone over this before, rather than making the assertion, why not show a logical progression how the assumption can lead to inevitably to the conclusion with no other considerations (ie without considering the DNA evidence)
Given this assumption we should be able to learn of relatedness by shared characteristics. A fairly simple idea.
Do you agree that IF all species were related THEN we should be able to detected relatedness based on cladistics.
Ray in previous post writes:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap< !--UE-->
We can identify relatedness and commonality between species ad nauseum. None of this is in dispute.
If you're response is 'I agree that cladistics can be used to detect relatedness between species given assumptions and this is not in dispute' then that is great. We can get to the core of the argument.

Assumption: All species share a common ancestor.
DNA evidence -> Chimpanzees are most closesly related
Cladistics -> Chimpanzees are most closely related
OK, so where do we go from here? There are three possible reasons why Chimps crop up as the most closely related based on two independent lines of enquiry:
1. Chimpanzees ARE the most related to humans
2. The creator made them that way
3. Coincidence
Can we agree that we are basically left with these options (I'm sure other options can be concocted, but these are the core ones under dispute)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2006 2:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 212 of 244 (282359)
01-29-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 8:36 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
That genetic homeostasis isn't found in sufficiently small populations.
So then, you assume, by extrapolation, that the fact above is responsible for breaching the large population barrier ? If this is true, you have now contradicted your earlier statement that genetic homeostasis is a fact.
genetic homeostasis = natural genetic barrier.
You are arguing in a circle.
If GH is a fact, "morphological change at some point is prevented" (source cite available upon request).
We have now come full circle - again. How is the barrier crossed and/or breached ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 8:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2006 6:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 213 of 244 (282362)
01-29-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Cold Foreign Object
01-29-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
So then, you assume, by extrapolation, that the fact above is responsible for breaching the large population barrier ?
So you admit that it's a fact? And that therefore, your vaunted "barrier" is only present for large populations; which are precisely the populations where we don't tend to see speciation and macroevolution?
genetic homeostasis = natural genetic barrier.
But you've just admitted this can't be true. If you accept that genetic homeostasis isn't observed in sufficiently small populations, which is an understood fact of the homeostasis you're referring to (I'll assume that you did your homework on homeostasis before you brought it up in the debate), then we know that there's no "genetic barrier" at all, and that homeostasis is a function of population interactions and not any kind of individual genetic limit.
It's incontrovertable. Your explanation of homeostasis as a "natural genetic barrier" doesn't explain why small populations are not homeostatic. Because we know they aren't we know that there's no such thing as the "natural genetic barrier."
You are arguing in a circle.
No, I'm not. I'm showing you how your model, that equivocates homeostasis with genetic barriers, can't explain why small populations are not homeostatic and therefore have no barrier. And if there's no barrier to surmount, why, then, there's macroevolution.
It's really quite simple, Ray. So answer the question. What's your explanation for why sufficiently small populations are not homeostatic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-29-2006 6:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 214 of 244 (282669)
01-30-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Modulous
01-29-2006 10:23 AM


Re: This thread is about Chimpanzee-human gap
Ray previously writes:
My preceding post was my conclusion. You still don't get it even though you claim to.
Modulous responding writes:
I see that you have examined my mind and have come to an infallible conclusion as to what I get. I 'get' that evolution and creationism are essentially two opposite views. That was basically all you posted
Negative.
I posted why common ancestry should not be assumed. I gave three irrefutable reasons that are backed by the evidence.
I can, if you like, continue to assume your fallacy, but then again I have already done that too:
Modulous previously writes:
Given this assumption we should be able to learn of relatedness by shared characteristics. A fairly simple idea.
Do you agree that IF all species were related THEN we should be able to detected relatedness based on cladistics.
Ray responding writes:
http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
We can identify relatedness and commonality between species ad nauseum. None of this is in dispute.
Common ancestry with all of its surface sensibilities is falsified by these facts:
1. Genetic homeostasis
2. The above seen and confirmed in the fossil record.
3. Ancient history of mankind showing intelligence surpassing our own today.
Hominid evolution posits genus homo to have gradually progressed into his present state from ape intelligence. History shows mankind in 2700 BC and before to have had intelligence that corresponds with the Genesis record of Adam being suddenly created ultra-intelligent. Darwinists know this but must deny for obvious reasons.
If you're response is 'I agree that cladistics can be used to detect relatedness between species given assumptions and this is not in dispute' then that is great. We can get to the core of the argument.
Okay...please proceed.
Assumption: All species share a common ancestor.
DNA evidence -> Chimpanzees are most closesly related
Cladistics -> Chimpanzees are most closely related
OK, so where do we go from here? There are three possible reasons why Chimps crop up as the most closely related based on two independent lines of enquiry:
1. Chimpanzees ARE the most related to humans
2. The creator made them that way
3. Coincidence
Can we agree that we are basically left with these options (I'm sure other options can be concocted, but these are the core ones under dispute)?
I have no objection with tossing # 3 out on its ear.
Other than that we agree.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-30-2006 02:27 PM
This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-30-2006 08:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2006 10:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-30-2006 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 217 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 12:18 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 215 of 244 (282670)
01-30-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object
01-30-2006 5:21 PM


Re: This thread is about Chimpanzee-human gap
3. Ancient history of mankind showing intelligence surpassing our own today.
You should stop watching the flintstones.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 216 of 244 (282677)
01-30-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by crashfrog
01-29-2006 6:21 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
So you admit that it's a fact? And that therefore, your vaunted "barrier" is only present for large populations; which are precisely the populations where we don't tend to see speciation and macroevolution?
Its not my barrier, its a scientific fact confirmed by Darwin and Mayr and hundreds of years of experimentation unable to breach.
But you've just admitted this can't be true.
Where Crashfrog ?
What are you talking about ?
I introduced GH into this portion of the debate which secured your interest. YOU have admitted GH is a fact in large populations, but not so in their subset species. For the third or fourth time now:
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT SHOWS THE BARRIER CAN BE BREACHED....
....in the large population ?
If you accept that genetic homeostasis isn't observed in sufficiently small populations, which is an understood fact of the homeostasis you're referring to (I'll assume that you did your homework on homeostasis before you brought it up in the debate)
From a guy who didn't even know what a quadruped was until a few days ago.
then we know that there's no "genetic barrier" at all, and that homeostasis is a function of population interactions and not any kind of individual genetic limit.
Unless I am misunderstanding you - this is double speak...round and round and round goes the Darwinian mind.
You have now also contradicted earlier statements made by yourself.
I knew you would back away from GH after you did your google homework.
It's really quite simple, Ray. So answer the question. What's your explanation for why sufficiently small populations are not homeostatic?
Because evolution is a fact within macro-kinds as I have already said.
Now we come full circle AGAIN: do you have any evidence that the barrier can be breached (other than after the fact hindsight rhetoric of "nature is here") ?
Wallace departed Darwin and said the gap between ape and human intelligence is too great unless Mind was involved. GH seen and confirmed in the fossil record falsifies common ancestry.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2006 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Wounded King, posted 01-31-2006 6:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2006 9:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 217 of 244 (282749)
01-31-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object
01-30-2006 5:21 PM


Re: This thread is about Chimpanzee-human gap
I'm not responding to a lot of your post because it is either points that have already been addressed or which are too broad to cover right now. I did read them, though.
Ray writes:
Mod writes:
OK, so where do we go from here? There are three possible reasons why Chimps crop up as the most closely related based on two independent lines of enquiry:
1. Chimpanzees ARE the most related to humans
2. The creator made them that way
3. Coincidence
I have no objection with tossing # 3 out on its ear.
Other than that we agree.
OK, coincidence is far fetched so let's ignore it right now.
We now have a test for common ancestry, should it exist. If common ancestry does exist this pattern should apply to all other organisms. As it turns out, this pattern of genetic difference and cladistics continues to an extraordinary degree. If common ancestry does not exist, this pattern will either not exist, or this pattern must have been deliberately engineered by the creator. This leaves some pretty hefty questions about the creator and its motiviations, which is more your area than mine.
Common ancestry has been massively tested and has not been falsified. And that is what the genetic gap basically means to evolutionists. It is a way of showing two independent lines of investigation coming to the same conclusions. There is a further independent line of investigation, which confirms common ancestry to mindblowing levels. I've already discussed it, but it might take a long time going through it, so we can just leave it there.
So, if you'd like, now the basics of the evolution position have been laid out, would you care to expand on the creationist's interpretation of the h/c genetic gap, possibly putting into context with the gaps of other organisms/cladistics etc.
Take care Ray.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 9:42 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 218 of 244 (282798)
01-31-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object
01-30-2006 5:55 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
Herepton writes:
GH seen and confirmed in the fossil record falsifies common ancestry.
OK, please provide some references for this, where the evidence for genetic rather than morphological stasis in the fossil record. At best all you can show is an indirect measure of variation in a fossil population and a similar measure for a fossil population from a different time period.
This is a complete nonsense statement, you clearly still do not actually understand what genetic homeostasis is. Contrary to what Crash suggested genetic homeostasis can still operate in small populations but it is far more likely to be overridden by other factors such as drift.
I am reminded of an analogy I read recently for how power cables could theoretically reduce interference to a sound system. The analogy was to the suspension on a car...
small, quick, one-inch-tall bumps will get filtered out by the springs in your suspension; but when you drive over a 200-yard-long one-inch-tall platform, your car does lift up into the air by an inch, while you're driving over it.
To my mind this is a pretty good analogy for genetic homeostasis. In a normal situation there will normally be continuous small changes in the environment which can interact with an organisms genome to affect its phenotype. In a population with a relatively high degree of variation, i.e a number of highly heterogenous loci, these environmental fluctuations can be compensated for resulting in little if any difference in the observed variation of the phenotype. The heterozygosity also has the advantage that when there is a more long term or drastic shift in the environment there is a larger pool of genetic variation from which a new 'optimally' fit phenotype can arise.
Consequently a population can maintain a higher average level of fitness in the longterm by carrying a pool of heteotic genes which are not themselves the fittest available for their current environment. There is a trade of between 'optimum' fitness for the specific environment and the ability to compensate for environmental fluctuations.
Gould and others may have offered GH as an explanation of static morphologies in the fossil record but without any actual genetic data it cannot concievably be considered convincing evidence for it. Any actual genetic evidence comes from population genetics studies.
The only methods of studying genetic variability in fossils are indirect, such as studying fluctuating asymmetries in fossil morphologies. Fluctuating asymmetries are usually correlated with the degree of developmental, and to an extent genetic, homeostasis.
Your conflation of kinds with large populations is completely muddleheaded. What sort of evidence would you actually accept as constituting a breach of this barrier? Given that you equate the kinds with the differing sides of this barrier and consider quadrupeds a kind I fear it must be something even more dramatic than the usual 'cat giving birth to a dog' demand.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 10:17 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 244 (282839)
01-31-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object
01-30-2006 5:55 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
I introduced GH into this portion of the debate which secured your interest. YOU have admitted GH is a fact in large populations, but not so in their subset species.
No, Ray, you still don't understand. Not in "subset species."
In the literal number of organisms. If you have 2 million widgits, and you observe them over many generations, they exhibit genetic homeostasis. If you abduct a small population of say 100 widgits - the same individuals who, as part of a large population, exhibited homeostasis - they don't exhibit homeostasis.
Do you understand genetic homeostasis, yet? No matter what organism, it's not observed in small populations. If you seperate individuals from a homeostatic population they stop being homeostatic.
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT SHOWS THE BARRIER CAN BE BREACHED....
....in the large population ?
The large population is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand genetic homeostasis, and you shouldn't have brought up something you weren't prepared to understand.
You have now also contradicted earlier statements made by yourself.
No, I haven't. Again, if you believe this, then you're refusing to understand my argument out of willful ignorance.
Because evolution is a fact within macro-kinds as I have already said.
We're not talking about kinds. We're not talking about sub-species. We're simply talking about large and small populations of the same organism, and the fact that only large populations are homeostatic, and they stop being homeostatic when the population becomes small.
Now we come full circle AGAIN: do you have any evidence that the barrier can be breached
There's no barrier to breach, in populations that are sufficiently small. Again, how do you explain this fact of genetic homeostasis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-30-2006 5:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 220 of 244 (282953)
01-31-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
01-31-2006 9:39 AM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
No, Ray, you still don't understand. Not in "subset species."
I made a mistake. I meant the opposite.
Do you understand genetic homeostasis, yet? No matter what organism, it's not observed in small populations. If you seperate individuals from a homeostatic population they stop being homeostatic.
I agree someone does not understand. Since you keep contradicting yourself I will say you are the one.
Mayr said genetic homeostasis prevents morphological change beyond a certain point.
Try to understand that whatever you may think about GH is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact. The fact means, eventually, related species within a large population, also known as macro-kinds, run into a natural barrier = common ancestry stopped in its tracks.
I am NOT saying Mayr has argued against common ancestry. I am saying he and others have established a fact. Darwinists MUST believe the barrier is somehow crossed since their whole philosophy depends on this need.
I ask you again: what evidence do you have that the barrier is crossed ?
Judging by your past replies you will cite subset-species. I have not challenged. I then ask how is the macro barrier breached ? You then rely on your circular reply again: "subset-species". IOW, you are assuming the barrier is crossed only because it happens at a lower level, and you are performing sloppy gymnastics attempting to evade having to admit it.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-31-2006 03:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2006 9:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Brad McFall, posted 01-31-2006 6:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2006 6:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 221 of 244 (282961)
01-31-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Cold Foreign Object
01-31-2006 5:58 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
H,
I'll edit the quote back in but I found that Wright made an interesting comment on g-homeostasis in my recent reading
EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
making it something questionable when compared to any thing similar. Perhaps this was how Mayr managed to be deragoatory on the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 5:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 9:25 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 244 (282969)
01-31-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Cold Foreign Object
01-31-2006 5:58 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
I made a mistake. I meant the opposite.
The opposite of what?
Since you keep contradicting yourself I will say you are the one.
Can you point out the contradiction?
within a large population, also known as macro-kinds
Large populations are not macro-kinds, and we're not talking about any organisms except for a single species. One single species.
Mayr said genetic homeostasis prevents morphological change beyond a certain point.
In large populations, it does.
In small populations, it doesn't. It's a well-understood fact of genetic homeostasis, which you must have known before you introduced genetic homeostasis into the discussion. Didn't you? I mean, or else you were talking about something you know nothing about.
I ask you again: what evidence do you have that the barrier is crossed ?
The fact that there is no barrier in a sufficiently small population. In a small population, no homeostasis - therefore, no barrier. It's quite simple and it's a well-understood fact of homeostasis.
Judging by your past replies you will cite subset-species.
Nobody's talking about subspecies or anything else. We're not dealing with taxonomy here, just large populations and small populations of the same species.
You then rely on your circular reply again: "subset-species".
Can you show me a single post of mine where I made this reply? Subspecies have never been the topic of discussion here, and I've never made reference to subspecies in any of my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 5:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 9:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 223 of 244 (282996)
01-31-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
01-31-2006 6:32 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
RAY: You then rely on your circular reply again: "subset-species".
CRASHFROG: Can you show me a single post of mine where I made this reply? Subspecies have never been the topic of discussion here, and I've never made reference to subspecies in any of my posts.
CF writes:
http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
We're talking about populations, period. A large population exhibits genetic homeostasis. Kidnap a small SUBSET of those individuals, seperate them from the large population, and homeostasis disappears in those individuals. (caps mine)
You have also edited out the other mentions but apparently forgot about the one above. You are being dishonest by slightly changing the terminology as to erect a technical insulation - STOP IT.
YOU have accepted GH as surrounding large populations that I am referring to as macro-kinds. We both agree GH within the large pop/macro kind is generally NOT a fact, and I already knew and agree with Wounded King that even within these ranks GH has "islands".
What evidence does ToE have to support a breach of the large pop/macro kind ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2006 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2006 9:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 224 of 244 (283002)
01-31-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Brad McFall
01-31-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
making it something questionable when compared to any thing similar
An assertion totally synonymous with what the debate here has accepted as factual.
But the evos keep evading the big question: what causes a breach at the genetic limit, that is when all the variations have been selected ? There is a pool, when it is gone it is gone. But common ancestry needs will not be denied.
Perhaps this was how Mayr managed to be deragoatory on the topic?
Agreed.
Mayr would have liked to rent a time machine and gone back and erase what he helped establish. All of his later writings act like he never said it and defer to Lerner.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-31-2006 06:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Brad McFall, posted 01-31-2006 6:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Brad McFall, posted 02-04-2006 2:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 244 (283007)
01-31-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object
01-31-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Another attempt at agreement
"Subset" does not mean subspecies. Again I ask you where I have referred to "subspecies" in any of my posts to you.
You have also edited out the other mentions
Nonsense. What's your evidence for this accusation?
YOU have accepted GH as surrounding large populations that I am referring to as macro-kinds.
Large populations are not macro-kinds. This has repeatedly been established. "Kinds" are a (bogus) classification, encompassing members of different populations and species; "large population" refers to a large number of individuals of the same species. Genetic homeostasis is not observed within "kinds", it is observed within large populations, and absent in small populations. This fundamental fact confirms evolution, allows for macroevolution, and demonstrates the intelllectual vapidity of creationism.
Discussion with you will not be possible until you retract your false accusations and act in good faith to understand the issue under discussion. With each evasion and distracting, scurrilous accusation, you typify the creationist inability to grapple with legitimate discussion of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 9:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-31-2006 10:46 PM crashfrog 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