Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 331 of 851 (555188)
04-12-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
04-12-2010 1:56 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
Me writes:
How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like
Perfect DNA replication, obviously.
You don't follow arguments very well do you?
I am asking how do you know what to judge a 'normal' allele much less genome from. I am not talking about the process (DNA replication). I am talking about the source. If you don't know what the source DNA is supposed to look like, how do you know if preceding genetic changes (mutations) in the genome are 'normal' or 'abnormal'?
Even evolutionists call mutations "mistakes" in this process
Yes when referring to the process of replicating DNA code from generation to generation. Not when referring to the code itself.
But despite evidence galore that these mistakes have produced thousands of genetic diseases in human beings as well as apparently only incoherent effects otherwise --that only destroy a previously functioning allele
Which no one is denying. What you are leaving out is the evolutionary process of natural selection which weeds out these deficiencies and weakness and strengthens the population that are more fit and able to survive.
-- you all PRONOUNCE them the means of making functioning alleles (functioning meaning producing something coherent that isn't harmful) and then you call it FACT and talk as if every variation is the result of mutations -- you actually DESCRIBE variations as mutations -- and again, this is DECEIT.
Get off your hobby horse and calm down. If you can't talk intelligently without calling people liars than you need to find another venue to vent.
It is a fact that mutations occur is it not? Is it also a fact that these mutations cause variation whether they are harmful or beneficial to the organism and population involved is it not?
If not please explain why.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13108
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 332 of 851 (555190)
04-12-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
04-12-2010 1:56 PM


Moderator Action
Faith writes:
But despite evidence galore that these mistakes have produced thousands of genetic diseases in human beings as well as apparently only incoherent effects otherwise --that only destroy a previously functioning allele -- you all PRONOUNCE them the means of making functioning alleles (functioning meaning producing something coherent that isn't harmful) and then you call it FACT and talk as if every variation is the result of mutations -- you actually DESCRIBE variations as mutations -- and again, this is DECEIT.
In order to head off another meltdown I'm temporarily removing your posting privileges in this forum, the Biological Evolution forum. This will allow you to focus your energies on the Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only) thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2010 4:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 333 of 851 (555194)
04-12-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
04-12-2010 3:22 PM


Faith writes:
Me writes:
Faith writes:
What is actually SEEN is better explained on the basis of pre-existing alleles.
What pre-existing alleles? What are you talking about?
All those you see when you sequence DNA. LOTS of them.
Are you saying that there is no mutational changes at all in the genome from generation to generation? Does the sequenced genome not differ from the original source genome?
Also there are differences with genomes of individual humans. Are you saying that all our genomes are 100% identical? If so how does DNA fingerprinting work?
In other words, what are you using to determine the baseline source for 'normal' alleles/genomes for humans or any other organism?
If it produces a normal trait. You know, something like green eyes or calico fur.
You are obtuse. What is a 'normal' trait? You are arguing in circles. Is mongoloid eyes normal? Kinky hair? Red hair? Dark skin? Light skin? Short? Tall? Fat? Skinny? etc, etc, ad infinitim.
Do tell, and you can be sure that evolutionists will use it to describe abnormal events like mistakes in DNA duplication among others.
You are misconstruing the term here. A process such as DNA replication is expected not to function perfectly 100% of the time. In other words that is the norm not the other way around.
And you have no idea that this is merely an assumption and not a fact, do you?
That is a whole other ball of wax that I don't think we are prepared to tackle here. If it makes you feel better, counsel strike my last statement.
I won't comment on the rest since it is basless ranting and raving.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 3:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 334 of 851 (555201)
04-12-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
04-12-2010 3:04 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Huh? NO idea where you get this out of what I said.
According to you any deviation from a specific DNA sequence will cause disease or non-beneficial oddities. Therefore, if two species share the same gene then the DNA sequence of that gene should be identical.
If the mutation hypothesis is correct then there should be deviations of genes between species, and this deviation should correlate with evolutionary distance. Furthermore, some of these deviations should be responsible for the adaptations seen in each species, and should therefore be beneficial.
Which do you think is true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2553 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 335 of 851 (555204)
04-12-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Faith
04-12-2010 3:13 PM


Re: changing debaters
Faith writes:
Most creationist scientists don't agree with the evolutionists and an ordinary intelligent person ought to be able to recognize the problem with treating a mere assumption as if it were a fact.
Yes, of course, everybody going to a university is completely idiotic and doesn't know the slightest thing about logic. It all makes sense now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 336 of 851 (555263)
04-12-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
04-11-2010 10:21 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
Hi Faith, I started out with a much longer reply, but in the interest of brevity I've cut it back to essentials.
But you haven't understood a word I've said and I haven't been all that bad at expressing it.
Curiously, I get the feeling that I understand your hypothesis perhaps better than you do, but because you seem to waffle back and forth in different replies, it is difficult to hold you to your own position.
Faith Message 15: In the case of Ring Species, alleles no longer possessed by one population in the series can be found in the former populations.
Yet when I make that observation, ...
... and the logical conclusion that alleles must reduce in one direction or another as you go around a ring species, ...
...completely in accordance with your hypothesis, ...
... but that the hybrid zones show a problem for this, ...
... because they show the existence of alleles in each side population not shared with the other ...
... rather than a continual stepping down in the number of alleles ...
... as you claimed occurs in ring species ...
... therefore contrary to your claim that :alleles no longer possessed by one population in the series can be found in the former populations" ...
... all I get is denial from you, name calling and statements like
But you haven't understood a word I've said and I haven't been all that bad at expressing it.
Except that I have understood. What you have said throughout this thread is that
Message 1 But whether we are talking only about a change in a single trait or in many traits at once, the trend is ALWAYS toward genetic depletion. ...
... except where it isn't.
And then you want to ignore those points, or change the argument to exclude them from the situations you consider subject to your hypothesis.
I'll try to come up with a useful diagram.
Please do. I, for one, will be very interested in how you explain 5 varieties with 4 hybrid zones (that each have more alleles than their neighbors), in accordance with your hypothesis that
Faith Message 1: It seems to be generally overlooked that for evolution to occur, alleles must be eliminated, thus reducing genetic diversity.
But whether we are talking only about a change in a single trait or in many traits at once, the trend is ALWAYS toward genetic depletion. ...
So make your diagram for the Greenish Warblers and we'll see how true to your own hypothesis you are.
RAZD Message 260: The existence of the hybrid zones between each variety in the Greenish Warblers is evidence that hybrids only occur in these zones, AND that they can be (and are) identified as hybrids by having a mixture of traits\alleles present in one or the other neighboring variety population zone, but not common to both neighboring variety population zones. Instead we see:
  1. P.t.viridanus
  2. a hybrid zone between P.t.viridanus & P.t.ludlowi
  3. P.t.ludlowi
  4. a hybrid zone between P.t.ludlowi & P.t.trochiloides
  5. P.t.trochiloides
  6. a hybrid zone between P.t.trochiloides & P.t.obscuratus
  7. P.t.obscuratus
  8. a hybrid zone between P.t.obscuratus & P.t.plumbeitarsus
  9. P.t.plumbeitarsus
The Faith Hypothesis of step by step reduction only of traits\alleles from one population to the next does not explain the observed evidence, specifically the existence of the hybrid zones, while evolution - with the addition of new traits\alleles through mutation - does explain the observed evidence.
The only place where the Faith Hypothesis holds up is if we start with a hybrid zone and then observe the reduction in traits\alleles to each of the neighboring variety zones. The problem for the Faith Hypothesis is that this "get out of jail free" card can only be played once, and it cannot explain the other hybrid zones.
Perhaps you do not understand my argument: not once does the pattern seen in the Greenish Warblers match your assertion.
The hybrids are a mix of the alleles of the two side populations, I don't understand why you think this is a problem for my "hypothesis." There's nothing to explain, it's just a section where there is gene flow between two of the populations. I leave these out of my hypothetical model because the model applies to what happens under the reducing processes, and doesn't happen where there is gene flow. Alongside the hybrid zones, the populations continue to lose diversity around the ring.
Make your diagram.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 10:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Percy, posted 04-13-2010 4:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 337 of 851 (555265)
04-12-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 9:13 AM


beneficial immunity studies
hi Wounded King,
The scientific approach gives very specific criteria for what constitutes a beneficial mutation and we can readily apply them to mutations in various simple model organisms from bacteria to invertebrates such as C. elegans or Drosophila. For humans and other vertebrates with longer generation times it is more difficult, but in most cases still doable, humans present their own issues of course in terms of research ethics.
We also have a number of instances where certain humans have immunity to certain diseases, and like the bacteria experiments of anti-biotics, these would show the existence of beneficial mutations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2010 4:14 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4597
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


(1)
Message 338 of 851 (555267)
04-12-2010 10:16 PM


Why continue feeding the Troll?
I have read all the way through both of the Biology threads that Faith has been posting in. My level of frustration has been increasing the further this goes on.
She is just making shit up. Not once has she posted any evidence to back up this drivel. Not once has she posted a single reference.
Quite a while back RAZD posted (message 240) a very detailed explanation why her her scenario cannot explain what we actually see in ring species and she just blew him off. It is clear she did not understand it.
Faith is clearly not here to learn anything. She whines that we just don't understand what she is saying. The crap she says just is not that complicated. It is just wrong and not supported by a single scientific study in the history of science.
She accuses scientists, biologists, evolutionary biologists, science itself of lies and fraud.....repeatedly.
Several dozen participants have put a lot of thought and effort into responses to her, trying to correct the glaring errors and made up shit that she spews and her response is just more made up crap.
She is exactly the same agent of chaos on this forum that she was 5 years ago and she has not learned a thing or changed one iota since then.
Faith is a TROLL and a damn good one! She suckered all of us into wasting our time reading her drivel and responding.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 339 of 851 (555281)
04-12-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Faith
04-12-2010 3:02 PM


If it causes disease or simply nullifies an existing allele it's a mutation.
"Nullifies"? Is that the same as "changes"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 3:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 340 of 851 (555311)
04-13-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by RAZD
04-12-2010 10:13 PM


Re: beneficial immunity studies
But this doesn't escape Faith's last thursdayist trap. Unless we have actual genetic evidence of the de novo origin of such alleles she simply dismisses them as having always been extant since the original ancestral population was created.
So while the sort of examples you speak of can certainly show differential fitness between different alleles either generally or in different environments,through population genetic stidues of traits such as Sickle Cell, HbC, HIV resistant CCR5 variants etc.., they don't help us with Faith since she simply denies that they originate from mutations (or in the case of sickle cell almost certainly claims that it is not truly beneficial).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2010 10:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2010 6:02 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 341 of 851 (555314)
04-13-2010 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by nwr
04-12-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Beneficial and deleterious mutations
Looks like everyone is bringing their old hobby horses out for a run around the park.
Again as you did 4 years ago in Faith's thread on beneficial mutations, Message 208, you bemoan the use of the term beneficial but singularly fail to suggest any usable alternative.
Of course a mutation is a change, but those changes have different effects. You seem to have decided to impoverish scientific discussion by not allowing us to use a simple term to describe a particular mutation conferring a reproductive benefit within a certain environment.
And of course evolutionists don't say that all evolution is change without implied direction, otherwise we wouldn't have adaptive evolution, presumably another term you object to since of course the organism is only adapted to its current environment.
What is the case is that the directions are only implied by the interaction of the genotype with the environment and are therefore highly diverse and labile. The actual mutations are certainly not directional with respect to fitness, but mutation is only one element in the changing population genetics that reveal the constraints that the environment imposes.
And no matter how you moan about teleological language you seem to have nothing to replace it with. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between terms with teleological overtones which have been co-opted for a technical purpose and actually believing in a teleological process behind evolution and I'm still opposed to butchering commonuly understood scientific technical terms to cater to those lacking half a brain. Should we also be lobbying particle physicists to stop using the terms strange and charm to describe quarks?
We shouldn't be censoring and bowdlerising science to appeal to the uneducated who aren't prepared to become educated. Do you really think that if we started using a different term Faith wont still be just as willfully ignorant another 5 years from now?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 11:14 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:57 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22953
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


(1)
Message 342 of 851 (555315)
04-13-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by RAZD
04-12-2010 9:56 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
Hi RAZD,
About ring species, call them A through E, Faith is arguing that both parent and daughter species can lose alleles. So if A has allele 1 and B doesn't, while B has allele 2 and A doesn't, that only means that A has lost allele 2 and B has lost allele 1. Since speciation is caused by allele reduction, if both subpopulations are losing alleles, but different ones, then speciation is only hastened. I don't think anyone has yet produced any evidence that would differentiate between Faith's view and ours concerning speciation in complex organisms like birds and lizards. I know you've been working hard at it, but length and detail isn't always effective rebuttal.
I don't agree with Tanypteryx that Faith is a troll because I don't think she's doing this on purpose, but the effect is the same. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I see Faith's zaniness as more extreme this time around. For example, the refusals to consider evidence and valid arguments seem more blatant, and when she states that responses have only made her more certain that beneficial mutations play no role while never explaining any reasoning process that others could follow is especially crazy, as if she believes if she says something then it must be true, a sort of God complex.
As others have argued in the past, many produce their best work when responding to Faith, and I do believe that board moderation and a more web-savvy membership is better up to the task this time around. I hope membership has a positive view of the way Smooth Operator's somewhat similar troll-like style was gradually limited to a single thread, because similar approaches will be taken going forward when deemed necessary.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2010 9:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2010 6:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 343 of 851 (555317)
04-13-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Admin
04-12-2010 3:38 PM


* sighs *
In order to head off another meltdown I'm temporarily removing your posting privileges in this forum, the Biological Evolution forum. This will allow you to focus your energies on the Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only) thread.
... I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 3:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 344 of 851 (555377)
04-13-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Wounded King
04-13-2010 4:33 AM


Re: Beneficial and deleterious mutations
Wounded King writes:
You seem to have decided to impoverish scientific discussion by not allowing us to use a simple term to describe a particular mutation conferring a reproductive benefit within a certain environment.
This was not a technical scientific discussion. This thread is a discussion with and for the general public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2010 4:33 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2010 11:14 AM nwr has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 345 of 851 (555386)
04-13-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by nwr
04-13-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Beneficial and deleterious mutations
So presumably I shouldn't use terms like DNA, transcription, allele, mutation, protein or gene? I mean most of the general public probably wouldn't understand what those terms actually mean would they?
We are still in the 'Biological Evolution' forum right? They didn't suddenly tack '...for dummies' on to the end when I wasn't looking? I didn't realise that we had to target the lowest common intellectual denominator in these discussions, I'll try and limit the syllable length in future posts.
Its nice of you to confirm that you really are hoping to dumb down the science in preference to having people make any effort to understand what they are discussing.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:57 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 12:32 PM Wounded King 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