Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2731 of 2887 (832529)
05-05-2018 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2730 by Tangle
05-05-2018 2:05 AM


Re: no supergenome
you can't prove the time period itself,
Yes we can. We can do it very simply. We both know that the bottom layer had to be laid down before the top layer. So the deeper we go, the older the rocks get.
Which is nothing but a stack of rocks, younger on top of older.
Your difficulty is in explaining why certain fossil plants and animals are only EVER found in certain layers of rock.
But YOUR difficulty is in explaining that where they are found represents the time they lived in. You can date the layer or layers to a certain age, but you can't prove that they represent a time period when the things in the rock or rocks lived on the earth.
And always the same layers for the same fossils.
Layers you've got, fossils you've got, but proving that they lived on the earth in the time frame the rocks have been dated to is not possible. And in fact it's impossible that they ever lived "then" anyway because in many cases the enormous area covered by the rock makes it impossible.
Floods do not and can not sort fossils in order. For that you need a miracle.
The subject here is not the Flood, it's the impossibility of the Geologic Timescale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2730 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 2:05 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2735 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 2:48 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2732 of 2887 (832530)
05-05-2018 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2728 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:02 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
The great phenotypic diversity couldn't exist unless there was great genetic diversity in the overall dog population.
That doesn’t mean that dogs have an unusual degree of genetic diversity. If it did wolves would show a lot more phenotypic diversity than most species. Do they ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2728 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2733 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2733 of 2887 (832531)
05-05-2018 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2732 by PaulK
05-05-2018 2:15 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
It's the fact that there are so many dog breeds that shows that the dog Kind has an unusual degree of genetic diversity in the overall population. It would be odd if wolves had much since they don't vary much phenotypically. if wolves represent the original dog then the many different breeds of dog must have taken all the genetic diversity with them, as it were, isolating the wolf species and reducing its genetic diversity so that it is really a breed rather than representative of the original population. It's probably phenotypically quite different from the original too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2732 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 2:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2734 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 2:32 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2734 of 2887 (832532)
05-05-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2733 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:20 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
It's the fact that there are so many dog breeds that shows that the dog Kind has an unusual degree of genetic diversity in the overall population.
No, it doesn’t. You are comparing the outcome of aggressive selective breeding with the outcome of ordinary natural selection. The differences matter.
quote:
It would be odd if wolves had much since they don't vary much phenotypically. if wolves represent the original dog then the many different breeds of dog must have taken all the genetic diversity with them, as it were, isolating the wolf species and reducing its genetic diversity so that it is really a breed rather than representative of the original population
That really is a very, very unlikely assumption. Why would the diversity be heavily concentrated in a small subpopulation ?
quote:
It's probably phenotypically quite different from the original too.
More reasonably, they probably aren’t.
Instead of arguing by making assumptions and ignoring inconvenient facrpts why not produce real evidence ? Or at least admit that you are making assumptions that you can’t really support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2733 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2736 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:57 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 2735 of 2887 (832533)
05-05-2018 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2731 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:13 AM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
Which is nothing but a stack of rocks, younger on top of older.
Thank you. Can you please remember that.
But YOUR difficulty is in explaining that where they are found represents the time they lived in.
Well that's got me. If the rocks are organised young to old - which you have just accepted - the organisms found within them MUST also go from young to old.
You can date the layer or layers to a certain age, but you can't prove that they represent a time period when the things in the rock or rocks lived on the earth.
I just did. For an organism to appear in a rock it must have lived at the time the rock was layed down. The strawberry can't be found with the Kiwi fruit.
Layers you've got, fossils you've got, but proving that they lived on the earth in the time frame the rocks have been dated to is not possible.
I just proved it. To be in the rock, they had to be there at the time the rock was formed. It can not be any other way can it?
in fact it's impossible that they ever lived "then" anyway because in many cases the enormous area covered by the rock makes it impossible.
That's just silly. The rock was not rock when the creatures lived on it, it was exactly as it is today; dirt, sand, sediment etc etc. Enormous areas of it.
The subject here is not the Flood, it's the impossibility of the Geologic Timescale.
Of course it's about the bloody flood. Geology explains the strata, the fossils and the timescales and shows why none of it can be explained by a flood 4,500 years ago. You have to explain how the flood can build the observed order in the geology and you can't do it. Avoiding it does not make your problem go away.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2731 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2740 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:09 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 2736 of 2887 (832534)
05-05-2018 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2734 by PaulK
05-05-2018 2:32 AM


Population splits are a form of selection that brings about new phenotypes
It's the fact that there are so many dog breeds that shows that the dog Kind has an unusual degree of genetic diversity in the overall population.
No, it doesn’t. You are comparing the outcome of aggressive selective breeding with the outcome of ordinary natural selection. The differences matter.
If an animal has a propensity to split off into isolated smaller populations in nature it's going to develop new phenotypic characteristics or breeds or varieties or races because that's a form of selection: the new group takes a portion of the genetic variability with it which creates a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population which will produce a new phenotype that eventually becomes characteristic of the new population.
There are animals, herd animals mostly I would think, that maintain their phenotypic homogeneity because they remain together and breed together. But if some of them get geographically isolated, that separated population will develop new characteristics just as always happens in any form of reproductive isolation, which is a form of selection. This must be how there is a huge herd of black type wildebeests but another herd isolated from them called the blue wildebeests that developed their own phenotypic characteristics and maintain them by remaining a herd which breeds freely among themselves. If the separated new population is very large then its separation and isolation will also affect the parent population's gene frequencies so it may also change phenotypically.
Wolves are a pack animal but as far as I know the pack never reaches the numbers of a herd animal, so they are more likely to develop separated populations of different phenotypic characteristics as long as enough genetic diversity remains. But if all those dog breeds came from the original wolf the wolf wouldn't have a lot of genetic diversity left for that kind of phenotypic variation.
It would be odd if wolves had much since they don't vary much phenotypically. if wolves represent the original dog then the many different breeds of dog must have taken all the genetic diversity with them, as it were, isolating the wolf species and reducing its genetic diversity so that it is really a breed rather than representative of the original population
That really is a very, very unlikely assumption. Why would the diversity be heavily concentrated in a small subpopulation ?
I thought I said the opposite. The wolf's genetic diversity would be reduced because of all the separated populations that got separated from it taking their own new gene frequencies with them, reducing the wolf to a breed itself.
t's probably phenotypically quite different from the original too.
More reasonably, they probably aren’t.
But their own genetic diversity would be reduced because they have become separated from the now greater population of all those other dog breeds. It would be very unusual if they didn't also change from their own reduced genetic diversity and new gene frequencies.
Instead of arguing by making assumptions and ignoring inconvenient facrpts why not produce real evidence ? Or at least admit that you are making assumptions that you can’t really support.
I'm describing the actual situation as I understand it, how nature produces new phenotypes by simple reproductive isolation, not making things up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2734 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 2:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2737 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 3:15 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2737 of 2887 (832535)
05-05-2018 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2736 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:57 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
If an animal has a propensity to split off into isolated smaller populations in nature it's going to develop new phenotypic characteristics or breeds or varieties or races because that's a form of selection: the new group takes a portion of the genetic variability with it which creates a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population which will produce a new phenotype that eventually becomes characteristic of the new population.
First it is pretty unlikely that a small subpopulation will contain a significant amount of the genetic diversity of the population. Second, just splitting the population is drift, not selection. Third we don’t have nature producing anything like the variety of dogs within a single species.
As far as I know neither herds nor packs are reproductively isolated, and I think we can agree that neither shows the degree of variation you are talking about.
quote:
But if all those dog breeds came from the original wolf the wolf wouldn't have a lot of genetic diversity left for that kind of phenotypic variation.
That’s obviously wrong. Just because a dog has a particular allele doesn’t mean there aren’t other copies of it in wolves. It’s very unlikely that the split between dogs and wolves had much impact on the genetic diversity of wolves at all.
quote:
I thought I said the opposite. The wolf's genetic diversity would be reduced because of all the separated populations that got separated from it taking their own new gene frequencies with them, reducing the wolf to a breed itself.
You definitely said that a small sub-population (the ancestors of dogs) had most of the genetic diversity of the combined population. If they didn’t they could hardly take it away with them.
quote:
But their own genetic diversity would be reduced because they have become separated from the now greater population of all those other dog breeds. It would be very unusual if they didn't also change from their own reduced genetic diversity and new gene frequencies.
Would it ? What does the evidence say? Since the bottleneck in the elephant seal occurred in historical times perhaps you would like to tell us about the phenotypically changes that caused ?
quote:
I'm describing the actual situation as I understand it, how nature produces new phenotypes by simple reproductive isolation, not making things up.
Since your understanding is not supported by the evidence it seems rather clear that it is something you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2736 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2738 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 4:42 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2738 of 2887 (832536)
05-05-2018 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2737 by PaulK
05-05-2018 3:15 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
I just want to answer this much for now:
First it is pretty unlikely that a small subpopulation will contain a significant amount of the genetic diversity of the population.
Of course it wouldn't. Where are you getting this idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2737 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 3:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2739 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 4:48 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2739 of 2887 (832537)
05-05-2018 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2738 by Faith
05-05-2018 4:42 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
Of course it wouldn't. Where are you getting this idea?
From you. You asserted that a small sub-population (the ancestors of dogs) must have taken most of the genetic diversity of wolves away with them. That could only happen if most of the genetic diversity was contained in the dog ancestors.
Edited by PaulK, : Put back taken (accidentally lost in writing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2738 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 4:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2741 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:21 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2740 of 2887 (832538)
05-05-2018 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2735 by Tangle
05-05-2018 2:48 AM


Re: no supergenome
Which is nothing but a stack of rocks, younger on top of older.
Thank you. Can you please remember that.
I've never forgotten it, why would you think I had?
But YOUR difficulty is in explaining that where they are found represents the time they lived in.
Well that's got me. If the rocks are organised young to old - which you have just accepted - the organisms found within them MUST also go from young to old.
For an organism to appear in a rock it must have lived at the time the rock was layed down. The strawberry can't be found with the Kiwi fruit.
OK I get your point but my point is that you can't prove the ROCK represents a LANDSCAPE in a time period so you don't have a landscape to put your animals into which to my mind blows the whole Geologic Timescale idea to bits.
I think I'm confusing two different arguments though, sorry.
Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth. This is where dinosaur fossils have been found buried, over all that huge territory. It may be represented by different sedimentary rocks in different places but it IS represented by sedimentary rocks. Over all that territory.
Of course dinosaurs can't live on rocks, and of course it will be explained that the rock wasn't there for the entire time period but only a small part of it, so presumably the dinosaurs roamed in the area when it was covered with lots of vegetation, which they needed to survive. So they would not only have lived but also died and NOT been fossilized in that long long period of time which would have been the main part of the millions of years assigned to the Jurassic.
In some small part of that time period this sediment formed for some reason, a very rare occurrence though it occurs like this in every supposed time period, this huge huge flat area of sediment which is seen all over the world now as a flat sedimentary ROCK in which all those dinosaurs are now found fossilized.
While that enormous area of sediment was there no dinosaurs could have lived in that area. And that area covers most of all the continents on the earth. Go look up the map of the Jurassic, or the map of the locations of dinosaurs which shows the rocks from mid Triassic to late Cretaceous, even more area nothing could live on. Oh, supposedly for this very short period of time in the millions of years alootted to the time period and somehow that's supposed to solve the problem of the demolition of the dinosaurs' living area.
Supposedly sediments kept piling on top, and they had to be the seidments associated with the next time period up the Geo Timescale wouldn't they? And then you keep burying it and burying it without an explanation for how all this material could ever become the simple stack of sedimentary leayers seen in the geo/strat columns everywhere. You have to end up with those particular rocks so they have to be originally the sediments from which those rocks were formed.
What animal could live on a flat expanse of one sediment? There isn't one iota of evidence that their surface was ever lushly covered with vegetation; these are all bare flat rocks. So for whatever even very short period those rocks were forming nothing like a dinosaur or anything else could live there. So they must have all died out. If nothing was living then nothing could have evolved to the next time period.
And this situation would have existed in every one of the time periods since every one of them has this odd flat rock to mark it. All the marine life would have to die in those time periods too. You don't get a flat sedimentary rock without a flat expanse of sediment onw which nothing could live.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2735 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 2:48 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2742 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 5:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2758 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 10:27 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 2741 of 2887 (832539)
05-05-2018 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2739 by PaulK
05-05-2018 4:48 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
From you. You asserted that a small sub-population (the ancestors of dogs) must have most of the genetic diversity of wolves away with them. That could only happen if most of the genetic diversity was contained in the dog ancestors.
I don't even remotely recognize what that is supposed to be saying.
Let me try again.
Original population of the Kind which might have been a wolf.
They proliferate after getting off the ark. They contain all the genetic diversity of the Kind left; presumably the vast majority of the Kind was killed in the Flood.
But from the genetic diversity possessed by the two on the ark, a great many new species of the Kind developed. First the two produced a population of offspring, and as the population grew, some individuals formed new populations that broke off and got geographically and reproductively isolated from the others. Every such new population would have its own portion of the genetic potentials with its own new gene frequencies so that new phenotypes would come to characterize each new population. It's highly unlikely any one population had all of any one gene/allele or all of any one set of genes/alleles and it would be very unlikely if any of them had the same gene frequencies as the original population.
This splitting off of daughter populations would also reduce the numbers and the genetic diversity of the parent population. It could greatly reduce in numbers and become just a breed unto itself. There isn't even any rason it would remain very wolf like but one of the groups did in any case.
Every split would allot a new collection of the genetic potentials and overall reduce the genetic diversity in each group. No one group would possess anything like the original genetic diversity of the dog Kind, they'd all have reduced genetic diversity with respect to that original.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2739 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 4:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2744 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 5:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2742 of 2887 (832540)
05-05-2018 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2740 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:09 AM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth.
You’re already confusing the strata with the time period. You can say that large areas of the planet had some sedimentary deposition during the Jurassic period, but it is nonsense to say that the period covered enormous areas.
quote:
Of course dinosaurs can't live on rocks, and of course it will be explained that the rock wasn't there for the entire time period but only a small part of it,
Perhaps you should give up this argument because you can’t get away from your crazy idea that the surface had to turn to rock.
It will be and has been explained to you that this is not the case. It will be and has been explained to you that the material was not rock when the dinosaurs were living on it. It will be and has been explained to you that the dinosaurs were living there when the material was being deposited as sediment.
And until you can get that, you really have no business discussing the issue. You’d do better spending your time reflecting on how you could get it so badly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2740 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 2743 of 2887 (832541)
05-05-2018 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2742 by PaulK
05-05-2018 5:26 AM


Re: no supergenome
It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2742 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 5:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2745 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 5:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 2798 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2815 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 8:52 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2744 of 2887 (832542)
05-05-2018 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2741 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:21 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
I don't even remotely recognize what that is supposed to be saying.
It’s your argument. If it doesn’t make sense to you, that is your problem.
The rest of your problem is that it is generally accepted that domestic dogs are descended from wolves. It is the diversity of the domestic dog that concerns us, not that of canids in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2741 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2745 of 2887 (832543)
05-05-2018 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2743 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:31 AM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.
That you misunderstand the map hardly means that you are not confused. A map of places where you can find Jurassic rocks (which is what you are referring to) is not a map of the period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024