Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,806 Year: 12,918/6,534 Month: 201/2,210 Week: 142/390 Day: 51/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 457 (707486)
09-27-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
09-27-2013 11:18 AM


so much for smarts
Explaining evolution or global warming or germ theory seems simple as the concepts are simple to grasp. Yet some people just dont seem to be able to grasp such simple concepts. Now i know that by all common measurement i have an above average IQ but i know that these thinks cant be that hard of a human of average intelligence to understand. But yet no matter how diligently you lead them from point A to point B to point C they get lost.
Um, just marveling here at your amazing confidence in what YOU believe, such hubris, such adamantine conviction you bring to sitting in judgment on your fellow human beings based only on your own opinions as grasped only by your own fallible intellect. Do "they" really in fact "get lost" or what does this mean anyway? [Do you have some examples of this "they" by the way or are we just required to believe you that a whole bunch of "they's" do in fact "get lost" whatever that means?]
But on the other hand they have no problems believing wild and crazy shit like reptilian aliens hijacking our governments, Mayan end of the world scenarios, daemons causing illness, Creationism, wide conspiracies among scientists (in some cases reptilian aliens or daemons pretending to be human scientists) to fraudulently support an untruth and ignore the real truth that hey know.
Sure, most of that is probably erroneous, but then so is evolution to many who really DO think it through, probably a lot of the thinking behind global warming too for that matter [but give us a break here, who doesn't believe germ theory? A tribelet of oh five or six hundred hiding out in the Himalayas or what?]
Again your hubris is breathtaking. You call opinion "truth" and want to do away with the opinions of those who disagree with you. Remarkable. In fact this attitude is far more remarkable in the 21st century than the ideas that vex you so. Versions of which are held by far less than half the world's population, you know, you really shouldn't sling around such statistical claims like that.
But let me suggest one thing: some human beings have had direct experience of supernatural things. Clearly you have not or you've simply rationalized it away if you have. Such experiences, being denied by the official establishment POV which you represent, lead people into all sorts of untenable possibilities or interpretations. Nevertheless the experiences are very real and those who have them rightly ignore the flimsy rationalistic type thought you represent. Ignore it with eyerolls and shrugs and go about their business of trying to figure it all out without your help.
Now apart from that we do have the Bible which some of us believe IS the word of the Creator God, and we believe it for good evidenced reasons, many of which have been presented here though we understand it's all over your head so we don't expect you to know what we're talking about. It's the key to the supernatural world for those who "get it" though.
When i met my first creationist i thought he was a Poe or a satirist, then i thought he was a minor sect member but half of the US believes this bullshit.
"Half"? WHICH "bullshit?" Slingin around those made up statistics again. Some representative of evidenced rationality you are.
Now can someone explain to me how this and worse can be still going on in the 21 century.
I hope I've made a credible stab at that explanation above.
How do we stop it, or what can be done about it?
Well I guess you could get yourself elected a secular Pope of sorts and inaugurate an Inquisition against all those who disagree with you. Unfortunately I suspect you could find quite a few followers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 11:18 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 3:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 13 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 6:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 457 (707488)
09-27-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2013 3:41 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Um, concluding that someone is not really a Christian is not trying to do away with his opinions. You can have your opinions and not be a Christian. Speaking of smarts, let's have a little logic here huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 3:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 457 (707495)
09-27-2013 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2013 3:53 PM


Re: so much for smarts
I judge an opinion to be genuinely Christian or not by the standard of the Bible, CS, an OBJECTIVE standard, not my own independent opinion, and certainly not anything to do with what I can or cannot "handle." I don't remember what you are referring to but I'm sure that's how I arrived at whatever I said because that's my rule.
However, this is another subject altogether, the usual sort of sidetrack that occurs here. Frako wants to know how to get rid of all those unwelcome opinions he identified as belonging to half the human race. If simply objecting to them on the basis of some objective standard or other would do it for him then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your opinions haven't gone away have they? Of course not. But maybe a secular Pope could do away with them as I suggested to Frako.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 5:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 457 (707511)
09-27-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2013 5:07 PM


Re: so much for smarts
No point in pursuing THIS war of subjective opinionizing any further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 457 (707512)
09-27-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by frako
09-27-2013 6:36 PM


Re: so much for smarts
You got "data" and "evidence" for your wild statistics about half the human race believing such and so? Funny you didn't supply any in your post, just hyperbolically opined away as if you were making any sense. As I said, all you have is your own opinion based on your own fallible mind, you showed no evidence for anything you said.
I challenged you to show that your wild accusation has any truth to it, which I know it doesn't, and you come back asking me to define the theory of evolution? BAAAAD debate form there.
Which version of the ToE would you like me to spell out, Darwin's or Dawkins' or whichever one is current at EvC designed to suit whatever issue they want it to answer?
The people in Weston Wisconsin do rather represent a tribelet tucked away in the Himalayas, that is, that belief system is not held by very many people, and most of them are not Christians by the way, proving you wrong that great numbers can be smeared with the accusation of a failure to grasp germ theory, but you are also wrong to suggest that THEY deny germ theory too; they merely believe that God is sovereign over germs. Which I believe also. Where I differ with them is in refusing to assume that God will heal according to my directives and override ordinary means. I also believe that God in His mercy guided humanity to the understanding of germ theory as well as all the LEGITIMATE scientific knowledge we possess. Which is most of it, mainly excluding the ToE.
The objections to global warming as I understand it have absolutely nothing whatever to do with spiritual or religious ideas and are argued entirely from scientific facts. You simply disagree with those arguments. This is pure opinion against opinion. Since you are convinced of the global warming scenario you can demonize those of a differing SCIENTIFIC persuasion as bringing calamity on the world, but you are lumping together all kinds of things that don't belong together. I personally do not have a settled opinion on this matter but I don't think those who disagree with global warming should be dismissed as not thinking scientifically. This is a TRUE case of differing views of actual EVIDENCE.
Your "rational explanations" for the supernatural experiences people KNOW they have had are just your own hot air, Frako. There are plenty of falsifications, frauds and deceptions of course, but there is also the real thing and all you are doing with all those IQ smarts is blowing smoke in the service of your own prejudices.
Biblical Creationism does not belong in the same category with all the other phenomena you are talking about. Your whole approach to the issues is stupid and irresponsible.
That's just plain lying slander to say that medical progress is put at risk by those who know that evolution is a fraud. NO Christian denies medical progress. It has nothing to do with evolution, that's a mental trick you all pull on yourselves. Stupid lying slander. The kind that DOES call for Inquisitions against people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 6:36 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 8:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 20 by Diomedes, posted 09-28-2013 11:45 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 457 (707561)
09-28-2013 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by frako
09-27-2013 8:25 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Look, your OP was simply a mess of misrepresentations and wild assertions. You are wrong about anyone denying germ theory, so admit it, and you are wrong about believers in whatever you are mistaking for religious principles, which is beyond me to sort out, denying the value of medical advances, which Christians thank God for. You are ignorant, Frako, of the thinking of your opponents in all the areas you are so blithely claiming to know what you are talking about.
Yes, as No Nukes says, most of evolutionism's ridiculous charges against creationists can be easily answered if you'd just recognize that we have no problem with "microevolution" or in other words, NORMAL VARIATION through sexual recombination. You just refuse to understand the thinking of your opponents and go on and on misrepresenting us. What does that accomplish for you? A false pride at least. AND WE ALSO are aware of the dangers of mutations, so what's your point about the virus attacking cancer cells? Sheesh, at least learn something about the terms of the argument you are so wildly carrying on about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 8:25 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 457 (707563)
09-28-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Diomedes
09-28-2013 11:45 AM


Re: so much for smarts
The assertion Frako made was that believers in faith healing DENY GERM THEORY and this has not been shown and I know for a fact that it is not true in all the cases of believers in faith healing I'm aware of. So stick to the subject.
And sorry back to you, but evolution has NO bearing on the advances in medicine, that's just an article of faith you guys bow down to. Sorry sorry sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Diomedes, posted 09-28-2013 11:45 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 2:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 457 (707574)
09-28-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by frako
09-28-2013 2:48 PM


Re: so much for smarts
There you go with your wild assertions again. Hey, I've many times proposed just HOW microevolution does not become macroevolution. And keep in mind that I resent the terminology as much as you do. "Microevolution" is a term that was spawned out of evolutionist assumptions, that merely describes what was always previously understood to be normal variation within the genome of a Species or Kind. The fact that genomes differ from Species to Species in some pretty clear ways, such as chromosome number for instance, ought to be some kind of clue that there are boundaries involved anyway.
But my argument is that the very genetic processes that bring about phenotypic variations of necessity reduce the genetic potentials from population to population. This is a NECESSARY development, it MUST happen or you will not get new variations, new breeds etc. You have to get rid of the competing genetic material. You aren't going to get a Hereford if the breed contains alleles for Black Angus. Etc. this is elementary. You guys are simply blinded by theory, keep conjuring with pure fantasy instead of looking at reality. Anyway, eventually this NATURAL AND INEVITABLE reduction in genetic diversity (which beneficial mutation would only interfere with by the way) leads through many daughter populations to a condition beyond which no further variation, i.e., evolution is possible. Hey, this works, and it means that evolution comes to a natural end down any line of variation. Wrap your IQ around that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 3:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 457 (707576)
09-28-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by frako
09-28-2013 2:48 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Hey, faith healing does NOT deny germ theory, nor is prayer a denial of it. Try learning something for a change. I don't believe in that kind of total trust in faith healing, but I nevertheless don't accuse them of denying simple facts like germ theory. Trust in God to heal, i.e. faith healing expects God to override germ theory, it does not deny germ theory. Also prayer ASKS God to override germ theory, it does not deny it. You are lying about what we believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 3:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 36 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 7:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 457 (707579)
09-28-2013 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
09-28-2013 2:39 PM


Re: so much for smarts
And your little comment about "an article of faith" is nothing more than projection. Scientists don't need faith--we have evidence. It is those who lack evidence who must rely on faith.
SO funny. That IS your Statement of Faith right there, just another recitation of the Evolutionist Creed. Evolution is NOT supported by the actual evidence, only by the fantasy evidence that exists in your minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 2:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 4:03 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 457 (707581)
09-28-2013 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
09-28-2013 4:03 PM


Re: so much for smarts
I don't read the Creationist websites. I think all this through for myself. Sorry that all that experience you have with various facts has been twisted in YOUR mind by what YOU have been taught. You seem to be unaware of the interpretive scheme you have been educated in that colors how you think about data.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 4:03 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 4:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 457 (707591)
09-28-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by frako
09-28-2013 3:51 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Ok wrap your head around this you admitt we can get new breeds. Say a small dog. I take the small dog breed and breed them to be hairless. We get a new breed small hairless dog. I breed the hairless small dog breed further so they have no tails or verry small ones. I breed the hairless small dog with no tail further to get one with giant fangs. I breed the small hairless tailles giant fang dog further to get a breed with a fused back. I breed the small hairless tailles, giant fang, fused spine dog further to get one with a short snout, i breed the small hairless, tailles, giant fang, fused spine, short snout dog further to get short fromt legs, i breed the short hairless, tailles giant fang, fused spine, short snout, short front leg dog further with one with long legs at the back, i breed the short, hairless, tailles, giant fang, fused spine, short snout, short front large back leg dog further ......
This is all fantasy, frako, because you don't know if you can get any of this from the given genetic material, and you are ignoring the very real possibility of running into the problem of genetic depletion which plagues all breeding programs that aren't careful to keep the level of diversity up, which compromises how far they can go toward a particular trait but that's reality for you. It is also what fuels conservation programs in the wild, as natural selection may isolate a group with such depleted genetic diversity it threatens the creature's survival.
You may or may not be able to get a hairless breed by starting from the small dog you have in mind. And if you can you may not have enough genetic diversity left in the genome to get the small tailed version of the small hairless breed you next have in mind, and so on from there. You can only work with what you actually have, you can't invent the possibilities out of your own imagination, but that's all you are doing here; you are just making all this up, which is what evolutionists do of course, but it aint science.
In natural selection sometimes the selective pressure is not as strong as in other times so the population seems to peak. But these pressures constantly change what was once a huge advantage over other species can be a hindernece like a large size when food is scarce. Or perfect sabre teeth when your pray is extinct ....
What you are failing to grasp here, as all you guys do who think that your imagination is sufficient to define actual reality, is that natural selection REDUCES the genetic diversity in the new population it creates. It must do so in order to create the new phenotype. All forms of selection, meaning any way a new population is created by a small portion of numbers from a previous population, which is how ALL new breeds develop, REDUCES the genetic possibilities in the new population. You do not have an endless series of possible new variations for this reason. Eventually you run out of genetic possibilities, and that is what happens IN REALITY with both domestic breeding programs and selection in the wild.
This simple fact of genetics is what spells doom for the very possibility of macroevolution. May your IQ points some day come to recognize this fact.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 3:51 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 7:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 457 (707593)
09-28-2013 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by frako
09-28-2013 7:19 PM


Re: so much for smarts
I hope that eventually you will give up your aggressive misrepresentations out of your incredible depths of ignorance about what people believe, and especially your nonsense about what REALITY is, but meanwhile there is no point in answering such ignorant rants.
In any case I'd like you to give some thought to my Message 35 which I was apparently writing as you were spewing out this crazy post. It would be nice if you'd learn to subject your above average IQ points to some sort of honest assessment of other people's opinions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 7:19 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 8:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 457 (707599)
09-28-2013 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
09-28-2013 7:59 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Posts like yours show only too clearly that there is nothing serious about the debate at EvC.
I'd only repeat that the nail is in evolution's coffin and I demonstrated how that is so. You on the other hand just assert and rant as usual without thinking about what I actually said. Selection FREDUCES the genetic diversity to produce the new trait or traits and it cannot happen any other way; if every time you get a new breed you also get reduced genetic diversity, which you do, and if you keep refining that breed, you are eventually going to get to the point where no further variation, i.e. evolution, is possible at all for that line of variation. This absolutely contradicts the pie in the sky theorizing of evolutionists that asserts that you can develop endless new breeds and eventually even get a new Species all down that same track. Pure fantasy.
Then if you try to increase the diversity you'll simply put a stop to the breeding process which is putting a stop to evolution another way. ANYTHING that increases genetic diversity will INTERFERE with the breed you want to develop. If you want new variations or breeds, i.e. evolution, you HAVE to have reduced genetic diversity and that eventually spells doom to evolution down that particular track. If on the other hand you want to increase your genetic diversity to avoid getting to that end point then you CANNOT PRESERVE YOUR BREED. You can't have it both ways.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 7:59 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 09-29-2013 5:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 876 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 457 (707634)
09-29-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by frako
09-29-2013 5:15 PM


Re: so much for smarts
If you try to increase the diversity you'll simply put a stop to the breeding process which is putting a stop to evolution another way. ANYTHING that increases genetic diversity will INTERFERE with the breed you want to develop.
Yea because when you get a new breed like say a German sheppard no matter how many generations of that dog you make they will always be genetical cousins because "micorevolution" stops when you get a new breed.
Huh? I have no idea what you mean here. As long as you keep the genetic base consistent and isolated from other genetic input you can always get more of the same breed. What's your point?
If i just keep the same presures selcting for color size and furryines everyithing elese can change making them geneticly diverse sure some might have green eyes, or bad bones or good bones, or are smart or doumb but that is what makes genetic diversity I can apply NEW pressures to get rid of undesirable traits reducing the diversity again or just let natural selection take its course with much weaker pressures on the other stuff while only sselecting myself for the fur color size.
Again, this is incoherent to me and I have to ask what on earth you are trying to say. But again I'll take a stab at it:
Again, as long as you have sufficient genetic diversity you can continue to modify your breed "to get rid of undesirable traits" for instance, while maintaining your basic gene pool for the breed, and dogs are a Species with an enormous pool of genetic diversity so you have quite a bit of leeway with them. Try it with cats or chickens perhaps, see how much room you have for further variation after you've established your breed.
If you want new variations or breeds, i.e. evolution, you HAVE to have reduced genetic diversity and that eventually spells doom to evolution down that particular track.
Yea if a wirus comes along that attacs them while their population is low sure they get whipped out because of the lack of genetic diversity, But once they breed and breed every generation having minor changes their genetic diversity grows.
This is the evo fantasy right here. It is simply not the case. If you breed them down many generations still getting minor changes you are running out their genetic diversity in those changes, and reducing the breed's genetic potentials with each new variation of the breed that you choose to isolate and preserve. Genetic diversity decreases with every generation, it does not increase if you are continuing to select traits.
The only way you can increase genetic diversity is by introducing other animals into the breed, thus changing the traits of the breed. That's what I meant about how you MUST interfere with the breed if you increase its genetic diversity. You change the breed, it is no longer what you were breeding, it is now something else. If you want to preserve your breed you can only do so by continuing to breed "true" to its particular gene pool by keeping it isolated from other kinds of genetic input, and that means you have a very limited genetic diversity you are working from. In a species with less overall diversity than dogs by refining your breed you will soon reach such a condition of depleted genetic diversity that you cannot get any new variations, which spells the end of evolution for that line of variation.
The diversity that is selected for if the pressures havent changed stay, but there are loads of other possible mutations that are neutral that are not selected or or against that can increase diversity.
Again, IF you increase diversity you threaten to blur or destroy the traits of the breed you have worked to establish, which as I said is one way evolution reaches an end point. Breeders know all this from experience. Sometimes they have to introduce new genes from outside their breed just to preserve the health of the breed which has become compromised by genetic depletion, but they have to choose the alien breed very carefully to minimize the risk of blurring or destroying the traits they most want to preserve. The old method of simply choosing your trait and breeding for it and keeping it isolated from all other animals reliably develops striking breeds but at great cost to their health from genetic depletion.
If on the other hand you want to increase your genetic diversity to avoid getting to that end point then you CANNOT PRESERVE YOUR BREED. You can't have it both ways.
So i cant place a few say 5 pairs lizards on an island and watch them evolve in to a different SPECIES (unable to breed with their ancestor species), because they will never be enough geneticly diverse to EVOLVE
This is a common way breeds are developed in the wild, by geographic isolation, nothing special about the situation, quite standard and I've discussed it many times before. To develop a new variety or breed all you need is reproductive isolation of a portion of the earlier population. This can be brought about by many different means, including natural selection as well as geographic isolation, and of course the concerted efforts in domestic breeding to keep the breed from mating with other breeds.
What is going on in your example is defined by evolutionism as speciation but that's a misnomer. Losing the ability to breed with the former population is an artificial classification. All you have is the usual playing out of the inbuilt genetic diversity in the new population, the particular set of alleles those ten brought onto the island, which mix by inbreeding over many generations to form the peculiarities of the new breed; otherwise known as microevolution. Now you've got a new variety of lizard that is genetically changed enough from the former population after generations of inbreeding among themselves to prevent breeding with it. It's artificial to call this a new "species." Not with dogs, which for some reason retain their ability to breed with all other breeds no matter how different, but with some domestic animals this same situation can occur with extensive inbreeding.
Why don't you spend just a LITTLE time familiarizing yourself with the arguments of your opponents instead of continually misrepresenting them? It might advance the debate, which otherwise goes on stupidly repeating itself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 09-29-2013 5:15 PM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022