Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution discussion with faith
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 152 (278141)
01-11-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
01-11-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Let's get back to the point
Schraf, I'm sorry but I believe I have answered you adequately and I'm sorry if you don't think so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 01-11-2006 10:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 01-11-2006 8:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 152 (278224)
01-11-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
01-11-2006 12:18 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
I don't know what some creationists may have said, but everything I've said is consistent with there being all kinds of variety within a species, so that of course all the different finches descended from a parent finch, and possibly all finches from a parent bird back farther.
Shouldn't all decendants of birds be birds, and never finches? How is this speciation within kinds if you've got the "bird" kind speciating into the "finch" kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 12:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 123 of 152 (278237)
01-11-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
01-11-2006 12:18 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
It is what is normally called "microevolution" now, that used to be called simply variation.
It isn't normally called 'micro-evolution' by anyone other than creationists. Allowing 'microevolution' to encompass speciation makes it a totally meaningless term.
Can you provide any evidence, ideally in the published scientific literature, to support your claim that this is the normal usage of 'microevolution' in evolutionary biology?
*ABE* Sorry my mistake, I see there are some texts which consider single instances of speciation as microevolutionary.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-Jan-2006 10:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 12:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 152 (278261)
01-11-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
01-11-2006 4:36 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Isn't a finch a bird? Nobody knows for sure what the original Kind was in any particular case. Yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Wounded King, posted 01-11-2006 6:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 8:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 125 of 152 (278273)
01-11-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
01-11-2006 5:55 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
So kind is a non-specific term? It can mean any one of a number of levels of relatedness? The 'Finch kind' is a sub classification of the 'bird kind'? Put like this it just sounds like a linnean system with all of the taxonomic levels changed to 'kind'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 6:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 152 (278280)
01-11-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Wounded King
01-11-2006 6:33 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
So kind is a non-specific term?
It is simply unknown what a Kind is. When it is known it will be quite specific.
It can mean any one of a number of levels of relatedness?
It isn't dependent on the Linnaean or any current classification system. I suspect it will ultimately be determined genetically.
The 'Finch kind' is a sub classification of the 'bird kind'? Put like this it just sounds like a linnean system with all of the taxonomic levels changed to 'kind'.
Don't know if "bird" is definitive of a Kind or there are separate Kinds of birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Wounded King, posted 01-11-2006 6:33 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 152 (278291)
01-11-2006 7:45 PM


Natural limits to evolution revisited
Picking up the subtopic, really Off Topic I guess, that started at Message 92 I ran across this statement that relates to it:
Biologist Ernst Mayr sees the species as a small gene pool protected from too much variability by a reproductive barrier. In other words, the species is a population adapted to a certain niche, and if the members of different species could interbreed with each other, too much genetic variability would occur, reducing the success of the adaptation. "The basic biological purpose of the species," says Mayr, "is the protection of a harmonious gene pool." To bolster his argument, he points out that hybrids between species are usually less successful and are often sterile.
Evolution: Library: Tigons and Ligers
"A small gene pool protected from too much variability." The process of speciating into this small gene pool was a process of reducing genetic variability. This is how new species of a Kind emerge, new phenotypes emerge, by the elimination of alleles that lead to different phenotypes, and as Mayr is suggesting it is also how the character of a species is maintained, preventing the reintroduction of alleles that would blur the character of the new species.
I'm glad I ran across this because it reminds me that reduced genetic variability does have both a positive and a negative side to it. It does produce subspecies. Had the Fall never occurred, subspecies could have developed all over the place as a result of even the severest selecting out of very small gene pools, and there would have been no negative effect involved. The negative effect enters in with the interbreeding in a small gene pool that magnifies any genetic diseases, and can ultimately take a species to extinction. Had there been no Fall this would not have been a problem.
But in either case, positive or negative, the fact that reduced diversity DOES accompany the processes that lead to speciation is affirmed in this passage about Mayr's views, and is clearly incompatible with the expectations of the ToE of endless variability.
{ABE: If Mayr is right and variability under certain circumstances is not desirable, then this has implications for mutation, which supposedly continually increases variability in any population, or so I've heard around these parts}
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 07:58 PM

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 152 (278294)
01-11-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
01-11-2006 12:20 PM


Re: Let's get back to the point
quote:
Schraf, I'm sorry but I believe I have answered you adequately and I'm sorry if you don't think so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Well, this is pretty much how I figured this would finish up.
First of all, I would like to compliment you on your conduct in this thread. I am really impressed by how positively level-headed and congenial you have remained the entire time. I have enjoyed it very much and it has been a pleasure to debate with you.
I am content with having had the conversation, but I unfortunately do not consider that you have ever addressed the issue adequately, or really at all.
To sum up my point, I will quote both of us from my last message.
quote:
I believe this has been answered. I believe scientists in general are quite competent at what they do, hypothesizing and testing and so on, and that this is a completely different level of scientific work from the ToE.
The THEORY of evolution IS the overarching hypothesis that informs every other more "specific" hypothesis in all branches of Biology.
It isn't logically consistent for you to say that you believe Evolutionary scientists to be competent at theorizing and testing theories, but then conclude that the overarching theory/hypothesis that they have come up with, that all of their other theories/hypotheses are informed by, is completely wrong.
If they have tested the consequences of this explanation, and if they are competent at testing the consequences of this explanation, then how is it that you can conclude that the explanation is wrong from a scientific basis?
Now, if you believe that these specific points have been addressed in one of the messages of this thread, please point me to the message number, because I do not recall them ever being answered.
You have asserted that you do not believe this group of scientists are incompetent at testing theory, but I do not think you have explained how you can hold this opinion at the same time you believe them all to be completely wrong about the major theoretical underpinning to nearly all of the life sciences; the theory that they have been continually testing in a million ways for the last 150 years.
Again, thanks for a very enjoyable exchange.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-11-2006 08:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 12:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 152 (278301)
01-11-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
01-11-2006 5:55 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Isn't a finch a bird?
Isn't a bird a tetrapod? Isn't a tetrapod a vertebrate? Isn't a vertebrate an animal? Isn't an animal a multicellular organism? Isn't a multicellular organism a life?
When you accept one round of hierarchial classification of organisms, and common descent for several species from one species, there's nowhere to draw the line. The organization of species we observe is a powerful indicator of common descent, for the reason that you just gave in this post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 9:00 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 152 (278302)
01-11-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
01-10-2006 2:48 AM


Genetics etc.
Firstly it is nonsense to say that evolutionary theory assumes that genetic bottlenecks don't happen.
That's an odd thing to think I would say, since of course I got the information from evolution-based biology. It is evolutionary biology that developed all these observations of the processes of population genetics.
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.
They operate from the presupposition that variation is open-ended, which is the opposite presupposition from the YEC's, that there must be a limit to it.
Secondly what is this "genetic capacity" you are talking about.
I would like to get some understanding of this myself. It is simply the most reasonable supposition based on my YEC assumptions but I don't know enough genetics to do more than wonder about possibilities. Creationists who get into this problem get way too technical for me to follow.
Do you claim that ancient "kinds" had hugely long DNA with multiple woking versions of each gene ?
Possibly something like that. For instance, I'm still enamored of the idea that junk DNA may somehow represent the remains of all the genetic losses over the millennia that the YEC assumptions predict should have occurred. How that would show up in the genome I don't know, but some evolutionists have suggested that it represents evolutionary trial and error in the past, so they must also believe it could represent genetic possibilities that died. So it would be just as "hugely long" as that nonfunctional or barely functional area of DNA might one time have been.
"Multiple working versions of each gene?" Yes something like that. Multiple polyploidy? The scientists would have to explain to me how such things might be possible, but I don't expect that will happen as they are geared to prove to me that such things can't happen.
Or that instead of their DNA strands pairing up they had numerous linked strands ?
Interesting thought. Is this something scientists have thought about? Can you explain this possibility to me?
What evidence do you have for your proposal, whatever it is ?
No evidence. That remains to be developed. And since scientists are looking for evidence in the opposite direction it probably won't happen too soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2006 2:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2006 9:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 152 (278303)
01-11-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
01-11-2006 8:54 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Naw, whatever a Kind is, the bird kind isn't going to include anything that's not a Bird. The question is whether there were a few original Kinds of birds rather than just one. My own guess would be no, that all birds descended from one original bird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 8:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 9:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 146 by clpMINI, posted 01-12-2006 9:11 AM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 152 (278305)
01-11-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
01-11-2006 9:00 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Naw, whatever a Kind is, the bird kind isn't going to include anything that's not a Bird.
But that's not the question. After all, the Finch kind doesn't include anything that isn't a finch, in either model. But the bird kind contains many other sub-kinds, including finches and other things that are not finches.
So, obviously, it's likely that whatever kind contains the bird kind also contains other things that are not birds, like mammals and the like.
My own guess would be no, that all birds descended from one original bird.
But what kind did that original bird belong to? What kind did the parent of that original bird belong to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 9:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 9:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 152 (278309)
01-11-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
01-11-2006 9:17 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Naw, whatever a Kind is, the bird kind isn't going to include anything that's not a Bird.
quote:
But that's not the question. After all, the Finch kind doesn't include anything that isn't a finch, in either model. But the bird kind contains many other sub-kinds, including finches and other things that are not finches.
That is correct. All I can do is guess. As I said, the original Kinds must surely have been designed with enormous genetic capacity for variation -- in the case of Birds, designed to vary into finches and sparrows and woodpeckers and crows and vultures and geese and ducks and flamingoes and kiwis and ostriches and penguins, and any other kind of bird you can think of. Or perhaps ducks and geese or other groups derive from a separate Kind of their own. I tend to think the original genetic capacity was enormous enough to have generated every kind of bird, however, all those in existence now plus an even bigger variety that developed before the Flood, some of which, including perhaps Archaeopteryx, were preserved in the fossil record.
So, obviously, it's likely that whatever kind contains the bird kind also contains other things that are not birds, like mammals and the like.
As I said, what defines the Kind is at this point unknown. It's just a guess. But it seems to me highly unlikely that birds would overlap with mammals.
My own guess would be no, that all birds descended from one original bird.
quote:
But what kind did that original bird belong to? What kind did the parent of that original bird belong to?
The original bird (or birds) had no parent. God created the Kinds from scratch. Following out a supposition from YEC assumptions, they must all have had the genetic capacity for great variation from generation to generation, yet only variations OF that Kind -- marvelous kinds of birds, an amazing variety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 9:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 9:59 PM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 152 (278310)
01-11-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
01-11-2006 9:53 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
I tend to think the original genetic capacity was enormous enough to have generated every kind of bird, however, all those in existence now plus an even bigger variety that developed before the Flood, some of which, including perhaps Archaeopteryx, were preserved in the fossil record.
Why can't you concieve of an organism with the genetic potential to generate all living things? Does that really seem more improbable than what you're suggesting?
marvelous kinds of birds, an amazing variety.
Indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 9:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 01-11-2006 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 152 (278318)
01-11-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
01-11-2006 9:59 PM


Re: mutations and environmental changes
Why can't you concieve of an organism with the genetic potential to generate all living things? Does that really seem more improbable than what you're suggesting?
Who says I can't conceive of it? I believed the ToE for most of my life. Now I believe the Bible, and based on what it says I like to think about what the genetic situation must originally have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 9:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 10:46 PM Faith 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