evolution discussion with faith

quote:

---

in fact will continue when the ToE is finally discovered to be false.

​

Imo, this presents a valid way to test Faith's claim, at least as a thought experiment. If we were to say ToE is wrong, would population genetics continue and be valid?

---

It depends on how ToE might turn out to be wrong. In other words, it depends on the kind of error that would show up in ToE.The core of the support for ToE is in genetics. If that is shown to be wrong, it would at least be a problem for population genetics. If genetics is correct but there is a technical problem elsewhere, then ToE might merely need a little tweaking, and population genetics might continue without modification.

I know everybody hates my repeating my Favorite Theory, but I'm really convinced that there is nothing wrong with population genetics, but that the inevitable ultimate tendency of all the processes involved to reduce genetic diversity is not recognized. This is because of the profusion of phenomena to be studied, plus the optimistic mental set of the ToE, not any deficiency in the scientists who work with these things.All those processes in normal operation, as they are understood and being better understood, I predict will eventually turn out to have a natural limit. That is, they do not lead to change forever, as the ToE predicts, but all the selecting processes ultimately reduce genetic diversity to a point that is a dead end for further variation, no matter what the mutation rate.This condition of species dead end is observed frequently, but it is usually explained away as resulting from unusual circumstances, and it is believed that mutation eventually overcomes this effect under normal circumstances -- even in some cases in unusual circumstances. I think it's inexorable but so slow-operating in most species that the basic optimism of the ToE can keep up the illusion of endless variation, even though it's false.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-09-2006 06:03 PM

Faith, Your argument was destroyed by the fact that diversity is observed to increase in spite of initial conditions being reduced to a single individual. Hall 1982.Remember? The evolution of a lactose cleaving enzyme, expression control system, & associated permease for the lactose molecule. Ring any bells?You are not going to be allowed to pretend this has not been demonstrated.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2006 06:33 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The existence of a mechanism that appears to reverse the process doesn't prove that the process doesn't ultimately go in the direction I'm describing. Occasional increases are to be expected too. Among all the processes of population genetics there are those that lead to relative stability and to temporary increase. Also, genetic techniques are being developed specifically to mitigate the effects of diversity reduction. So your one example doesn't answer my point -- I'm talking about an overall trend that won't show up in any given example, and others have acknowledged this too. Some time maybe I'll try to collect all the farflung parts of this argument.

Faith, The mechanism actually reverses the process. There are many such studies. Do you have any such cites that show that this "process" won't ultimately increase diversity?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Faith. I hope you read Allright, forget the fossils as I suggested, because it relates a little to what we are discussing. Let's play pretend. We will pretend that you are right about this. And now we can think about the consequences.We were talking about an evolutionary tree. With our "just pretend" you would have many evolutionary trees instead of one. You would have a tree for the dog kind, a tree for the bear kind, etc.Now we still have the evidence that all of those trees seem to fit together very well, as if they are all parts of a single large tree. There is a possible explanation for that. Maybe God designed all of the kinds separately, but he based it all on a common design.Here is how we can tweak ToE to describe that. We say that God has a design lab, where he designs organisms. It is an evolving design. So we still have a single evolutionary tree, and we still have evolution. It is just that part of the evolving is happening in God's design lab. That even explains the alleged gaps in the fossil record.This tweaked theory really isn't much different from theistic evolution, with God subtly controlling the mutations to get it right. I'm not sure how that helps you, since YECs are usually opposed to theistic evolution. I would expect most YECs to be also opposed to the tweaked evolution I just described. And you still have the problem of evidence showing that evolution, whether Darwinian or tweaked, occurred over millions and millions of years. I actually think your biggest problem is with geology, rather than with evolutionary biology.Any comments?This message has been edited by nwr, 01-09-2006 08:08 PM

Right. It's the fossil record that proves the process doesn't ultimately go in the direction you're describing. The trend would show up in the fossil record, and since we don't see it there, we know that your position is not correct.It's a good try, though, Faith. Honestly. You developed a testable proof against evolution. Most creationists don't make it that far. Compared to that, the fact that your proof didn't pass the test is really insignificant. Science proceeds as much from our failures as from our successes. The most exciting words in science are not "Eureka!" but "Hrm, that's funny..."

Nope, I'm merely predicting.

You do realise that your idea kills any chance of the Noah's Ark story being true ?Accordign to taht story most species - including all land vertebrates - suffered a serious genetic bottleneck around 4,000 years ago. Worse for you, the difficulty in fitting all the species involved into the Ark means that many creationists propose that the Ark carried only representatives of different "kinds" - where several modern species are descended from individual "kinds".Your views allow no way to recover from this bottleneck - when in fact there is no detectable bottleneck from the supposed event at all. Thus for the Noah's Ark story to be true there must be a more rapid recovery of diversity than current scientific views allow.

Yup, just as we could arrange all different kinds of motor vehicles on a tree based on variations in design rather than chronology or relatedness. I don't follow this at all I'm afraid. According to YEC, God did the designing at one point in the past, at The Beginning in Genesis. He created the separate Kinds at that time, into which He had designed the genetic capacity for further variation within each Kind. This capacity for variation was probably originally an exuberance of love of variety itself, but it became a necessity when the Fall brought death into the picture. At that point survival of the "fittest" became a driving element in the selection of varieties of each Kind, into which God had kindly designed this means for preserving them. I haven't followed all the arguments from that point of view, but it's not my argument and not any YEC argument that I'm aware of. I believe it all operates according to the mechanisms and processes science has discovered and keeps discovering, but that these were designed into the creatures back at the beginning and don't require His intervention. Except that theologically God upholds all of His creation at all times, physically it simply operates by the laws He originally established. Or there would never have been such a thing as a miracle, which is His very rare suspension of those laws. Yes, it doesn't, and we are. I'm sure I am, only I didn't grasp much of it. That could be so, but very little of their dating has a solid objective basis. Most of it is conjectural. And a discussion of radiometric methods on the board recently seemed to me to show how much room for error there is there too. A few.

Yes, I'm well aware of this problem. I figure it's solved by recognizing that the original Kinds had an immense genetic capacity, which, no longer being the case because of depletion over the millennia and particularly the Great Depletion at the time of the Flood, is very hard to reconstruct, especially under the handicap of the ToE which works from the opposite presupposition. From this point of view it wouldn't be so much a matter of recovery as simply the playing out of the genetic processes as usual with much less genetic variation left, though still an abundance, which suggests a truly enormous abundance at the beginning. But then mechanisms of recovery may also be part of the picture, some kind of predictable mutational mechanism for instance.

The fossil record proves that a big flood happened once upon a time and wiped out an amazing variety of antediluvian creatures, including many never seen since. Something eventually has to explain the supposed gradations in the fossil record, but it certainly isn't descent over millions of years. The fossil record couldn't possibly show anything of the sort. Variation of phenotypes continues as usual. It's the gradual reduction of genetic diversity that occurs concomitantly with the development of these phenotypes that I'm talking about. That would not be preserved in the fossil record no matter what. Well, I appreciate the compliment.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-10-2006 02:33 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-10-2006 02:36 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-10-2006 02:36 AM

Firstly it is nonsense to say that evolutionary theory assumes that genetic bottlenecks don't happen. So the Toe does NOT operate from an "opposit presupposition". The ToE simply operates from the usual scientific view of taking the simplest explanation that fits the evidence rather than making radical assumptions to maintain a predetermined conclusion.Secondly what is this "genetic capacity" you are talking about. Do you claim that ancient "kinds" had hugely long DNA with multiple woking versions of each gene ? Or that instead of their DNA strands pairing up they had numerous linked strands ? What evidence do you have for your proposal, whatever it is ?

Faith, Your prediction is contradicted by evidence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

The fossil record proves that a big flood happened once upon a time and wiped out an amazing variety of antediluvian creatures, including many never seen since. Something eventually has to explain the supposed gradations in the fossil record, but it certainly isn't descent over millions of years.

---

How is this consistent with your claim to respect science ? How can you dismiss the scientific consensus so lightly if you really respect it ?