|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You are wrong in more than one way here. First you are wrong to see a distinction between adding variations and adding variability. Second, isolation itself does not do anything to generate new species and races, it is more a block on processes that would stop it (primarily gene flow). And thirdly - my point - without the addition of new variations, selection and drift - the processes which do change populations - would run out of material.
quote: No need to thank me, since I'm saying nothing new at all. In principle it could happen, but I'm not aware of any cases of extreme selection. In the cases of cheetah and the elephant seal there was no shaping by selection that we know of, just near-extinction.
quote: If you intend to claim that the culling associated with speciation is extreme as that associated with the creation of a new domestic variety it is not a case of making a BETTER case, since you have not made any case at all for that.
quote: Even Steven Jay Gould's "rapid" speciation was estimated as taking centuries in a typical case, so yes, you will have to make a case for it happening so quickly. (And, if I recall correctly - it stuck with me because it seemed counter-intuitive - the greatest rates of evolutionary change are associated with weak selection, not strong. Something else that you will have to consider). And then again you also have to deal with the long periods of time - hundreds of millennia - between speciations. And no objecting that the time is not so long, because if you could show THAT your whole argument would be redundant.
quote: Because they ADD to the genetic diversity of the incipient species - contradicting your assumption that the genetic diversity must stay low.
quote: Most of them will arrive when the population is large and there is relatively little culling.
quote: So we have an increase in the diversity of the population. You may wish to ignore that fact but that does not save your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It should also be easy to see that mutations don't need to alter that adaptive picture at all, and don't have to alter it in a way that seriously disadvantages the traits already being selected for. They certainly don't have to cause any adaptive alleles to be lost from the population entirely - in fact that would be very, very unlikely (it wouldn't be common even for single individuals to lose an adaptive allele and it wouldn't matter much if it did happen). And besides evolution expects failures as well as successes, so even if it did happen on very rare occasions it wouldn't be a problem. So you,re really going to have to stop being vague explain what you mean, because I can't come up with any interpretation that would be a plausible problem for evolution at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: And that's why evolution needs a source of new variations.
quote: There is no "stopping and starting". Your question makes no sense at all. I've told you that adaptive evolution is the interaction of mutation and selection - what you are describing as an absence of evolution IS evolution.
quote: But it isn't a big deal because it DOESN'T even address the issue. Now remember you are talking about a scientific debate using the scientific terms and many YECs gave no problem with the scientific form of macroevolution anyway - in fact they INSIST that it has happened. And it isn't even a big deal for your argument either. Reality isn't the way that you think it "SHOULD" be.
quote: Which is why a process that adds new variations is NOT a problem for evolution. It is NECESSARY for ongoing evolution. Your own argument SAYS so!
quote: I have no idea how it can be obvious to you. It is intuitively obvious that increases in diversity can offset decreases and I believe that is obvious to you, to. So you need a reason specific to this case and quite frankly you haven't offered anything that cones close to explaining such a reason.
quote: Only if you have no source of new variations. As I've been pointing out for years now.
quote: If the lizards did it your way which is far from proven. But the evidence for deep time hardly relies in the time required for speciation. Even Darwin noted that species were stable for a very large proportion of their existence.
quote: No, I don't since the large majority of the mutations will occur in the long period where the species is not undergoing speciation - as I have said earlier in this thread. Both the time factor and the factor of population size make this inevitable. Shrink the time required for speciation all you like, it makes no difference to this issue. ABE: Because of this the vast majority of the mutations we are talking about cannot interfere with speciation - because they do not enter the population until speciation has occurred. There's a lot more to be said against the idea of mutations interfering with soeciation in any way that would cause a problem for evolution, but this is so obvious I don't see how it can be denied. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Believe me Faith, it's the arrogance, the dishonesty and the double standards that really annoy people. And that behaviour, sadly is typical of Creationists.
quote: You have FAITH that your argument must be correct, but you don't know it in any rational way. I know that for a fact, since you still haven't managed to patch the major hole in your argument that I identified years ago. Nor have you manage to deal with the fact that - as you yourself admit - your argument is not consistent with the conclusions of science. And I'm afraid that conclusions based on solid evidence outweigh your opinion.
quote: Which means that you reject anything that contradicts your religious dogma.
quote: But not in any way that would contradict evolutionary theory.
quote: I will point out that showing that an argument has a fatal flaw is not "ignoring" it, and that a fatally flawed argument is not "good". If you have come up with a genuinely good argument against evolution I don't remember it. But again, if you think you have a genuinely good argument against evolution I am prepared to give it a serious evaluation. Just point me at it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It's arrogant and dishonest to declare evolution "dead" just because you've decided that the fatal flaw in your argument isn't important. It's arrogant and dishonest to rely on hate and slander to dismiss expert opinion - when you don't like it. It's dishonest to falsely attribute your own faults to your opponents, although creationists are addicted to that particular dishonesty.
quote: You haven't given a reason WHY mutations can't restore diversity, over the timescales available, you haven't countered the theoretical argument that we should expect increase and decrease to be in dynamic equilibrium, you haven't countered the problem that your conclusion is in conflict with conclusions based on strong evidence other than to say that you disagree. That's a pretty big hole that can't be filled with vague handwaving about "blurring" the species or insisting that it doesn't matter.
quote: Even if that were true - and it isn't - you need to have a stronger case than "it isn't obvious". If it's even a reasonable possibility, the evidence that diversity HAS been maintained overrides your opinion that it couldn't be.
quote: It would have to be a trend to be acknowledged as such. You've produced no evidence of an ACTUAL long-term downward trend. Again, as I pointed out before, relying on the relatively short periods where new species are forming while ignoring the far longer periods where we can't see much happening (but it still is) is going to give a misleading view.
quote: And again we have the view that there is some "intended" form for the new species and that is just wrong. Making a false analogy with breeding is not a good argument. Even worse, it is illogical. The parent species has its distinctive form and in your view it has more genetic diversity than the child species. So why can't the child species increase it's diversity to the same level ?
quote: So your arguments are 1) to claim that your conclusion is true and 2) to make a false analogy (which, if I remember correctly you have previously denied - certainly I have addressed it before). Your points don't even do what you claimed for them.
quote: In fact you don't know what they do. But again, you make the mistake of looking at the wrong thing. You can't generalise from just two examples - and it's hardly honest to ignore the other examples that have been raised in previous threads. So you've got two examples of genetic changes that - so far as you know don't affect phenotype. Does that really mean that NO genetic changes could affect phenotype ? It would be irrational in the extreme to make that claim. So there's plenty wrong with your argument there - it doesn't even consider the circumstances of the study or what it was trying to do.
quote: Because obviously you would make desperate - and obviously inadequate - attempts to cover up a hole that isn't there... Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I'd really like to thank Faith for demonstrating so vividly the delusional pride of creationists.
I first came to properly understand evolution nearly 30 years ago - I'd given up Biology at 14 and it was the first major presentation of it that I really read. Dawkins explained the basic workings of evolution - mutation producing new variations and selection culling them. Somehow Faith still fails to understand that mutations are an important part of the theory and treats them as an optional extra. She refuses to admit that her argument is fatally flawed despite resorting to the most obvious question-begging possible in an attempt to evade the problem. She can't accept the fact that evolution is valid science. She can't even admit that evolution is based on solid evidence. She thinks that confronting arguments against her view of the Bible consists of sitting in an echo chamber which won't allow proper consideration of those arguments. We know this because she has no knowledge of the real arguments for the Maccabaean dating of the book of Daniel. She thinks that we should respect expert opinion - except when the experts say things contrary to the dogmas she espouses, in which case lies and slander are the the order of the day. But I can't blame Christianity for her behaviour. Faith is a Christian only in the broad sense of paying lip-service to certain beliefs, or of calling herself Christian. But maybe that's just another of her delusions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024