|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,220 Year: 6,477/9,624 Month: 55/270 Week: 51/37 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Microevolution is still evolution.
quote: I really don’t know why you tell these lies. The nested hierarchy of Linnaean taxonomy, the genetic evidence of distant relationships, the many transitional fossils are all evidence of common ancestry well beyond the limits creationists would accept. There is not one iota of evidence that many unrelated kinds exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.
quote: Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear. Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.
quote: That’s just silly. Gene sequences aren’t assumed nor do assumptions make the matches between them appear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
quote: First, the necessary number is very, very low. Second, neutral mutations will do. Third, there are cases where selection will preserve variation. Finally - and most importantly - your argument proves you wrong. If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again. It happened therefore it couldn’t is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.
quote: It’s a slowdown, not a stop. And the evidence indicates that it hasn’t got near that stage yet.
quote: The fact that other species haven’t gotten there is evidence that it won’t happen to everything - or, at worst, that it will take a long, long time to happen. Your claims about timescales are just your assumptions.
quote: So the boundary is a theoretical limit that hasn’t occurred yet - and there is still no evidence of separate kinds on Earth.
quote: They don’t exist in the numbers we would expect if the fossil record was complete - but we know it isn’t. Worse for you the missing fossils are mostly those you would call within kind evolution - fossils showing the transition from one species to another. But we do have plenty of fossils linking larger taxonomic groups -for instance dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians. To blithely assume that these are just variations in a kind and not evidence of an actual relationship is to blind yourself to the evidence.
quote: Wrong on both counts. Evolution should form nested hierarchies but there is no reason for independent creations to form a nested hierarchy. We don’t need the ToE to tell us the latter.
quote: It is not a FACT that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity. The evidence says that it hasn’t, that there are no separate kinds and your theoretical speculations can’t defeat evidence. Build your castles in the air if you like, but the real science will just ignore them, as it should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: I see that you’re desperate to change the subject. It must be embarrassing to be caught trying to cover over the fact that you were proven wrong. Alrpthough I do wonder how exactly you manage to get new combinations of alleles in a population that is homozygous at every locus - which was the situation under discussion. Want to explain that one.
quote: Oh, please explain why it must have happened. The rest is your usual empty theorising. I guess mental conjuring is all you have,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: That’s been proven wrong even in the case where a species is homozygous at every allele. You unwittingly admitted it. That’s why you were changing the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
quote: Sure Faith. Nobody should dare tell the truth about YOU. You’re an evil lying slanderer! As you keep reminding us. Funny how it never works.
quote: By which you mean that you are incapable of following the conversation. Or perhaps you pretend to be, because you keep getting refuted.
quote: And yet if you follow the thread back a few messages you could easily see what I was referring to. It is your intent to avoid that knowledge, not mine.
quote: Sure, it’s the truth that’s slime, not lies and hypocrisy.
quote: Since mutation can create heterozygosity you are obviously wrong. You implicitly admitted it in Message 39
I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible.
As I pointed out in Message 41
If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again. It happened therefore it couldn’t is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.
Which you answered by trying to change the subject in Message 52As I pointed out in Message 54 But of course you can’t possibly remember what was posted yesterday (or even an hour ago) or look back to refresh your memory. (And, BTW what about haploid life forms? They seem able to evolve just fine even though they can’t be heterozygous)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
quote: On the evidence it seems to be true, so it’s a pretty good answer. Which is why you haven’t been able to refute it yet - and why you avoid the evidence so much.
quote: In your opinion. But you have yet to make a case that this produces a real ongoing decrease rather than a fluctuation in diversity.
quote:More of your unsupported opinions. You can’t support either claim. quote: They are a lot further from extinction than they were at the time of the original bottleneck. They have survived a more recent bottleneck due to humans hunting them. You have zero data on what mutations have done to improve their situation. It’s really telling that you have absolutely no examples from species that have not undergone severe bottlenecks. This inevitable result doesn’t seem to occur from ordinary levels of selection at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
quote: There is no evidence for the Flood that gets anywhere near “compelling”. The order in the fossil record is compelling evidence against your views.
quote: I don’t think that telling silly lies does anything to diminish the strength of the evidence.
quote: Aside from the fact that the order exists independently of dating there is the fact that evolution does take considerable time in ordinary conditions.
quote: The first “fact” is not generally true of wild species and therefore not a fact at all. For the second the question is vague - and it has been pointed out the the differences between human and chimp are within the range of available mutations.
quote: But neither presents a solid case against evolution - and neither is evidence for the Flood at all. The order in the fossil record is far stronger as evidence against your views because there is no reasonable prospect of an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
quote: Funny how the “best” evidence for the Flood is evidence against it.
quote: And as we know there are plenty that are not flat and not straight. And it isn’t that odd that flat surfaces existed in the past. On the other hand massive halite deposits, sequences indicating gradual transgression and regression of the sea, volcanic eruptions occurring above water and so on rather kill the idea that the strata are due to the Flood.
quote: A rather odd claim to make when most of the fossils found are sea life. And more odd when we find fossils of creatures that died in arid conditions.
quote: Obviously it couldn’t.
quote: There are two important differences. The first is that we have very serious objections to the idea that a Flood could account for the geological and fossil record, while you have no similarly strong objections to the idea of distinct species having a common ancestor. The second difference is that you are trying to use the problematic features as the main evidence for your view. If you can’t actually explain them, then they aren’t good evidence at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Changing the genome will rather obviously change what it does.
quote: And sometimes to favour completely new variations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: DNA certainly can be “snipped out of the DNA chain”. It’s called a deletion.
quote: That really doesn’t make sense. Even if we aren’t talking about actually sequencing the DNA. I think you’re failing to understand the terminology. And what do you mean when you deny that mutations are a natural phenomenon ? Are you suggesting that they are human-created, or a supernatural phenomenon ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Apparently it’s quite common in bacteria.
Gene loss by deletion is a common evolutionary process in bacteria, as exemplified by bacteria with small genomes that have evolved from bacteria with larger genomes by reductive processes.
And this article explains how it can happen, although it’s rather technical
the loss of a gene can be the consequence of an abrupt mutational event, such as an unequal crossing over during meiosis or the mobilization of a transposable or viral element that leads to the sudden physical removal of the gene from an organism's genome
Now how about answering my question? Why do you say that mutations are not a natural phenomenon ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: You should try reading the links provided.
The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.
There are plenty of citations to papers about multi-cellular life there, too.
quote: It is certainly relevant as to how species can evolve. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: That’s probably true for you, because you don’t care about whether your argument is correct or not. But your argument does rest on the claim that mutations cannot account for the genetic differences between species - and that makes it very, very important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: You’ve been given reasons many times. To give just one recent example from this thread Message 664. And that only lists some of the major objections.
quote: It’s pretty obvious that you are very deeply stuck in your “floodist” box.
quote: People understand the argument alright. They just don’t understand why you think it’s any good. Especially when the “observations” are over-generalisations at best, and when you ignore many observations that don’t fit - or “explain” them away by inventing crazy nonsense. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024