WTF is wrong with people

Good grief, I must be scoring some points here because the vitriol against me has escalated to quite a pitch, and degenerated into quite an illogical mess as well.How ridiculous to have to answer this stupidity. If the word "theory" as defined by you all to describe the ToE is a shuck, an empty pedantry, then what does it have to do with TRUTH? You guys are the ones evading the truth, as I said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Puhleeze. Bacteria are so utterly different from sexually reproducing animals I have no idea what conclusions to draw from such an experiment, except to say that variation that leads to an adaptation is the normal genetic thing, normal "microevolution," in sexually reproducing organisms anyway, and I can't expect that it is anything more than that in bacteria either, just one way the creature adapts NORMALLY, not speciation in any meaningful use of the term at all.
Sigh

About the single cell becoming a multi celled organism as I commented that is just a title and an assertion and I have NO idea what it means in reality.And I have no interest in talking to someone who slings the profanities as you do. Get lost.,

I'm getting tired and you are obviously misunderstanding me, no doubt because you have a completely different idea about what the words mean that we use to describe genetic events. I guess I could explain and explain and never get it across to you. But a lot of that is simply because you don't WANT to get it. Anyway, maybe I'll come back later to try to answer whatever it is you are complaining about. And the f word does NOT refer to anything sexual as used as an epithet and you know it. Besides which if it did it would be out of place here anyway. Such language is puerile.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I thought I was clear that I'm objecting to that definition, not that I'm not aware of it. It's a tendentious question-begging definition that obscures the fact that you still have the same genome and therefore the same species, not a new species in the sense you would have to have to validate the claims of the ToE. All that has happened in most cases is that you get a very small population that has become reproductively isolated and inbred over many generations, and the inbreeding over those many generations of this group with severely reduced genetic diversity does lead to genetic incompatibility with the original population. It's still the same species nevertheless and the term "speciation" only serves to obfuscate that fact. I refer to it by that name anyway, but every time I do I have to append all these caveats and qualifications.I also then point out that this new population exhibits the very reduction in genetic diversity I've been talking about, which is a trend AWAY from what would be required if the ToE were true because it makes further variation LESS possible, not more. And again, since you are going to want to throw mutations in here to claim that this reduction is not inevitable, if its genetic diversity DOES increase then you will lose the breed/race/variety/species and the whole idea of speciation that supposedly is evolution's springboard to further speciation. This is silly. I've never said I WANT you to see any such thing, I'm emphasizing that you CANNOT, that all you have is SPECULATION about anything in the unwitnessed past, it's all inferred from the ToE. And again what I've been describing MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAPPEN AT ALL ANYWAY.I haven't called scientists liiars and deceivers. You keep putting words in my mouth, bringing up the Bible and God and your own crazy nonsense about what creationists believe though it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I believe scientists have bought into a plausible theory, I believe the theory is wrong and the scientists are deceived and I wish they'd wake up. What is often described as "observed" simply is not. It's "observed" the way the fictitious line of descent depicted on the various charts that have been posted here are "observed," that is, they aren't, they're imagined into existence.No, I do not have to accept evolution if I accept mutations. I only accept mutations as being events that occur as mistakes, certainly not as viable new genes; that's just something you guys believe. Sorry, if the environment, such as malaria, is what it takes to make a mutation viable, that's not normal genetics, that's a disease process compromise.I have no idea what you are ranting about in response to my saying that adaptation is normal variation. It is. Normal variation under selection or other form of reproductive isolation. It does not require mutations.Since what "large morphological change" means was not given, all I can do is assume it's built into the genome and was selected.Sorry, I did not find your lists convincing. Of course you are going to scream that they are.I spent thirty years believing in evolution and made some attempts to verify it, all of which left me with the sense that the supposed evidence really didn't support what it claimed to support. Nevertheless I went on "believing" in evolution until I became a Christian and eventually discovered creationism which made sense of all that nonsense. Of course IF you could SHOW me via your time machine that it actually happened I'd have no choice but to change my beliefs again, wouldn't I? Of course that is not what your time machine would show, if it was an honest time mchine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, I guess I can go on repeating my points since you require it of me.As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong. There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.I guess you can use an imaginary system to "make successful predictions" because after all the fulfillment of those predictions is entirely a matter of imaginatively interpreting something to fit the theory anyway.Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking. That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world. To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.I have not at any point in this discussion rejected the ToE "on religious grounds." What's remarkable is that very few have bothered to address what I HAVE said, which is based on actual biological fact: You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. Either way reality defeats evolution. All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Finally, the fact that you are NOT getting what I'm saying, and I'm sure you are representative, is coming out. Yes, to get a new phenotype requires that the genetic material for OTHER traits be eliminated from the new breed, which is a reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population, the new breed, from the former population or from the species population as a whole. Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity. The dog population as a whole does, yes, but the cutting edge of evolution is the development of new species, or breeds, and those single breeds or "species" are based on a particular genetic substrate which is a selection of alleles for its traits OUT OF the previous population or the dog population as a whole. EVERY separate single breed or species is built upon its own selection of alleles for its pecular collection of traits, which HAS to be a sharp genetic reduction from the dog population as a whole. Sometimes breeds have been formed from very few individuals, which obviously sharply reduces their genetic diversity among themselves. This is how ALL breeds or "species" form, there is no other way. I mean that if you don't get species or breeds you are not getting evolution, that's all I meant by the word "purpose." Evolution isn't happening if you aren't getting new species or breeds or varieties and to get them requires the elimination of genetic material for everything but the traits of that group. In the wild this is usually a random process, not intentional in any sense of the word, except where natural "selection" has a role, but it's still true that the development of a new phenotype, a new species, is built on the elimination of alleles or genetic material for other traits in the previous population or the species as a whole, even in the mother population from which the new "species" has migrated or otherwise become reproductively isolated. So if you have mutations or any other way gene flow is increased, that are introducing genetic diversity into a breed or new "species" you are destroying the breed, interfering with evolution.Since to get a new "species" requires that a new set of alleles for traits characterize this population, i.e. reduced genetic diversity with respect to previous populations from which it is now isolated, adding back anything to increase diversity only defeats the "purpose" as it were of forming new species. This is absolutely contrary to the idea that the ToE is only onward and upward with the development of varieties or "microevolution," having no stopping point. What's to stop it? everybody asks. Well THIS is what stops it. You can't have a continual increase in genetic diversity along with every new speciation event. THAT idea is pure fantasy, absolutely contradicted by the reality of what has to happen to form a new species.There's more in your post but I'd rather stick to this for now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you WANT me to be that stupid but I'm not, it's just that you are not understanding what I'm saying and it suits you not to so you don't put much effort into it.What happens GENETICALLY is the same whether in the wild or in domestic breeding, though the causes are different, usually random in the wild, and you are likely to get imperfect isolation in the wild which also affects the outcome.But again, the basic genetic facts are the same: by either means you get reduced genetic diversity when you reproductively isolate a small portion of a larger population, which is probably the only way but at least the most common way new "species" or breeds develop either in the wild or in artificial selection. There are MANY ways this situation can occur but functionally they have the same result. For instance, natural selection reproductively isolates a portion of a population, so does migration, geographic isolation, anything that causes a bottleneck, human selection and so on. ALL these events have the same effect of isolating a small number from a larger number of individuals of a particular species, the smaller the number and the greater the isolation the greater the effect but it's the same effect in all cases.And that effect is that you have a new population of individuals with a reduced genetic diversity that now inbreeds among themselves only, and over some number of generations their limited alleles combine together allowing a new set of traits to emerge to distinguish the population from the former population from which it diverged. This is because of the different allele frequencies contained in the new population as opposed to the original population.The lizard example Frako gave illustrates what happens when you have a very small number of individuals that get reproductively isolated from the larger population, in that case ten lizards that get isolated on an island apart from thousands or millions left behind on the mainland. Obviously there is a sharply reduced genetic diversity in this smaller population of lizards in comparison with the mainland population, and after some generations of inbreeding they look quite different from the mainland lizards and have developed an inability to interbreed with them as well. This is of course the same kind of thing that Darwin described with the Galapagos turtles.This is artificially called "speciation" by evolutionists who get all excited about how supposedly it really is a new species that confirms evolution, which is of course the reason Frako posted that video, and they refuse to listen if you point out that all that's going on here is "microevolution" or normal variation of the same sort that produces breeds in domesticity by artificial selection, and that the inability to interbreed with the former population is merely the result of the drastically reduced genetic diversity of the new population as it has inbred over some generations, which changes it sufficiently to interfere with genetic compatibility with the former population. This situation only took thirty years to accomplish as Frako points out at the Evolution Fairytale site, which I just read through. Thus is the evolutionist delusion maintained.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which, again, is exactly how you are failing to get what I've been talking about lo these many posts back through many threads over many moons. Finally you at least get what I'm saying and you think it doesn't make sense. That's a good start, finally.New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed? Somehow even within the larger population, then, you have to have some form of reproductive isolation occurring.You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps. The reason I am talking about establishing a new breed or species is to answer the common refrain that there is nothing to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Evolutionists treat all variations of the microevolution sort as open-ended, such that there is nothing stopping fishes from evolving into zebras among other things, according to the typical evolutionist chart of the sort Coyote posted back in Message 49. My argument is that in fact there are GENETIC limits to this open-endedness, such that to get a new "species" REQUIRES that its genetic diversity be reduced from that of the population it diverges from. My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."You seem to be talking about a new phenotype in a very limited sense, the result of a mutation in an individual within a population that may produce a new trait in that individual. But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all. No, I'm saying that to get a new phenotype, which is an increase in phenotypic variation, requires that you not have alleles for other phenotypes, and that is a situation of reduced genetic diversity in the population of your new phenotype with regard to the original or mother population of the species. Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes. As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it. It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough. You are talking about details, I'm trying to stay focused on the big picture, that you don't get a new population of a new phenotype, a new set of traits, without a reduction in the underlying genetic diversity within the new subpopulation with respect to the earlier population from which it diverged. And this is most apparent with the smaller numbers of individuals that form the new population, although it is the trend even with larger groups. Yes they would if they affect traits considered characteristic of that species. This is only of importance in domestic breeding where you risk losing some crucially defining characteristics, and the main thing if this occurs in the wild is that you have the absurd situation of forming a new species on the basis of its reduced genetic diversity, which is THE way new species have to form, and then you add in stuff that blurs the picture but it would never be enough new diversity to make up for the necessary and essential loss that creates the species in the first place; so what you are picturing is something like losing genetic diversity and then adding back in a little genetic diversity, then if a new species forms from that losing genetic diversity again and so on. Halting steps forward and backward forever. This is NOT how evolution is presented, as a straightforward increase in both genetic and phenotypic diversity without any glitches between the fish and the zebra. Yes that would be absurd. I'm trying to keep the picture in mind of a recognizable new phenotype characteristic of a new "species" such as the new lizards on the island that Frako described, or Darwin's Galapagos turtles. They have distinctive characteristics that set them apart from the mainland populations of each species. These developments are presented as confirmation of the ToE. The picture is of an ESTABLISHED new species or breed in both cases. According to your thinking mutations would alter its traits and change the basic population-wide phenotype, which of course is true if that happens. I wonder if either phenotype HAS altered since the last look at the lizards or at Darwin's turtles. IF they have altered by such means of course they are still the same species, but this is a trivial point. The point I'm trying to keep in focus is that the FORMATION of a new species, that is, the emergence of new traits that come to characterize a new population-wide phenotype, always involves the reduction of genetic diversity; that is the DIRECTION of such changes, you don't get new species from the addition of genetic diversity. In the case of domestic breeding that will only produce a mongrel. Perhaps you can argue that in the wild it doesn't matter if the phenotype keeps changing, OK, but again that's a trivial point. I think what I'd say here is that it doesn't actually happen. You don't get that kind of blurring of the phenotype in the wild as a rule, or ever. You get pretty clearcut traits in your new inbred subpopulation, whether of Darwin's turtles or the island lizards or a subpopulation of chipmunks or whatever, as long as reproductive isolation is maintained. Hardly. Increasing genetic diversity is just a side issue to my argument. I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it. I'm just trying to answer the constant refrain that assumes that mutations are always adding genetic diversity, saying that even if that happened it couldn't counteract the necessity of reducing genetic diversity in order to get a new "species" and THAT is what my argument "amounts" to, that's what it's ABOUT. Even if mutations do increase genetic diversity the effect has to be small and it is only going to create that situation of a step forward and a step back that I described above anyway, which in itself contradicts the smooth unhindered path pictured by evolutionists from micro to macroevolution. Again, THAT is NOT "my argument" and for my answer to this side issue of a challenge see above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What it has is new allele FREQUENCIES unique to itself. THAT's what evolution is made of, Percy. It's how you get new breeds, new races, new varieties, new "species." No genetic analysis has ever revealed new allele frequencies in a daughter population? How odd.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Finding the right words is a problem there doesn't seem to be any solution to. If I use the words "species" and "speciation" because they are attached to real phenomena that I want to describe, I run the risk of their being read only in the sense established by the ToE, which will of course only confuse things and make my argument all the harder to understand. The best I've come up with is to put those words in quote marks to show that I'm using them in a different sense and of course to keep repeating how I AM using them which gets tedious but that seems more desirable than the confusion I'd expect from not trying to qualify them.Yes you are right, I'm trying to keep the focus on what the ToE promises, new Kinds (or Species the way that word was used back in Darwin's day), which requires me to keep explaining that the actually observed phenomenon of "speciation" only refers to microevolution or the playing out of the genome of the evolving Species and not in any sense a step toward that ToE promise.Defining the Kind or Species isn't possible beyond some broad or imprecise categories, but the basic concept ought to be clear enough at least, and what I keep arguing about reduced genetic diversity leading to a point where further inability to vary or speciate comes to a stop becomes a sort of functional definition of the boundary of a Kind.The diversity argument you find so irrational seems to me to be the soul of simplicity and obviousness, not necessarily easily grasped due to evolutionist assumptions but nevertheless simple enough if one makes an effort to see it within the creationist paradigm, and aids to understanding it are available from a basic knowledge of how breeding works and what conservationists do. It is indeed frustrating not to be able to get something so simple across. To my mind this is a frustrating but interesting case of paradigm clash. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Far from denying that obvious and well known process it is implied in everything I've said.

OK fine, so the terminological problem is too complex to solve at all.You do not "recognize" what I say is wrong, you ARE misunderstanding it and you are imposing a bias on it. Everybody likes to say they understand it but when they actually try to characterize it it's clear they are miles away from getting it. Frako doesn't get it at all, neither does Percy although he has very strenuously claimed to many times, and neither does PaulK. And now I know you don't either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I should have said: It would be odd if no genetic analysis found differing allele frequencies in a daughter population because that is what I'm talking about. You don't need alleles absolutely unique to the daughter population that do not exist in the mother population in order to get a new breed or "species," what you do often have is alleles that weren't expressed in the mother population that are now expressed in the daughter population, while alleles that WERE expressed in the mother population are not expressed in the daughter population and may even have dropped out altogether if the daughter population was made up of a small number of individuals, such as the ten lizards out of the thousands or possible millions in Frako's example. THIS is standard variation or microevolution and it can play out an enormous number of phenotypes from nothing but the built-in genetic diversity until it has reduced down a particular line of variation to the point that this can no longer happen.I can't imagine what genetic analysis you'd be talking about, considering that what I'm describing is so common. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What evidence? There is absolutely nothing about the "identifiable examples of real speciation" that is different from the examples of breeding or any other way races and breeds and varieties form either in nature or through domestic breeding; the only differentiator is the inability to interbreed with other members of the same Species.It's an artificial distinction the scientists are making, but the circumstances are the same. A smaller population splits off from a larger, is reproductively isolated from the larger, inbreeds for some number of generations, producing an identifiably new trait picture for the new population, and reaches the point where it no longer can interbreed with the population from which it diverged. Simply because of that loss of ability to interbreed it is defined as "real speciation" but this loss is most likely simply the result of the change in the underlying genetic picture caused by the inbreeding of a small number of individuals. That's all it would take to create sufficient genetic incompatibility with the former population to prevent interbreeding. And it seems to me this same situation must occur with domestic breeds from time to time as well.It's all the same processes acting on the same kind of genetic givens and the inability to interbreed after many generations of inbreeding is an artificial differentiator between the populations making one a "species" and another a mere breed or variety. Yes, of course I'm arguing with science directly here so of course you're going to object.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.