EvC Forum: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 611 of 785 (856551)
07-01-2019 3:50 PM

Reply to: Message 610 by Faith
07-01-2019 3:40 PM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line.

You think dogs are able to mate with catfish?

Stage three new characteristics should start to emerge from the new combinations of alleles, including a new pattern of markings on an animal like a raccoon.

Why can't new characteristics emerge due to mutations? You don't get humans by mixing and matching different chimp alleles.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 610 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 3:40 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 3:56 PM		Taq has replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 618 of 785 (856558)
07-01-2019 4:11 PM

Reply to: Message 612 by Faith
07-01-2019 3:56 PM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

I still haven't figured out where you get your very strange readings of what I'm saying, such as dogs breeding with catfish and humans having anything to do with chimps at all.

"Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line."--Faith

I consider dogs and catfish to be separate species, but apparently you think their inability to mate is an artificial dividing line because they are able to interbreed.

Also, you keep acting as if combining different alleles will get you all the phenotypic variation that is needed. If this were so, then combining different chimp alleles should produce any other species that exists, including humans. If, as we have been saying, that you need mutations in those genes to get new species then you shouldn't get humans by mixing and matching chimp alleles. Which do you think is the better model?

I'm sure new characteristics COULD emerge due to mutations but in my scenario they aren't needed so I don't include them.

Why wouldn't we need mutations to produce different species? Chimps and humans are different species, so wouldn't we need mutations if they evolved from a common ancestor?

And in any case the mutations aren't going to be brand new are they? I'm guessing they would have developed in the parent population and now act like any other allele.

Every generation is born with new mutations.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 3:56 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 621 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:14 PM	Taq has not replied
	Message 626 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:43 PM	Taq has replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 620 of 785 (856560)
07-01-2019 4:13 PM

Reply to: Message 617 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:10 PM

Re: Speciation is an illusion

Faith writes:

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion.

Can you cite a single example of this?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 617 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:10 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 622 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:16 PM		Taq has not replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 631 of 785 (856572)
07-01-2019 5:15 PM

Reply to: Message 626 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:43 PM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

I suppose you would need mutations to get from one species to another as the ToE requires, although I don't think mutations could accomplish that anyway,

Why wouldn't it accomplish it?

Since the way they are described is pretty muddied I can't even get a grip on what they actually do so I've not be able to say much about how my model would deal with them except to say that I regard them as mistakes that don't contribute to the normal mechanisms of variation.

So you don't know what mutations do, but you are sure they don't contribute to variation. Those two statements seem to be in contradiction.

Why couldn't mutations contribute to new phenotypic variation?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 626 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:43 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 632 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 6:01 PM		Taq has replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

(1)

Message 641 of 785 (856705)
07-02-2019 11:20 AM

Reply to: Message 632 by Faith
07-01-2019 6:01 PM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

Because mutations can only do what the gene does, they can't go outside the genome and make a human being out of a chimp.

Then how are mutations able to turn a brown mouse into a black mouse in the case of wild mouse populations? Your statement doesn't even make sense.

Also, if what you say is true then there should only be one species in the whole universe, and all members of that species would look identical. Why? According to you, no matter how different a genome is it can never do anything different. Therefore, if you took the chimp genome and changed it so that it is identical to the human genome it would still produce a chimp.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 632 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 6:01 PM		Faith has not replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 659 of 785 (856833)
07-03-2019 11:01 AM

Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
07-02-2019 11:38 PM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

Outside the genome means that you'll never get a human being from an ape because the genetic stuff is simply not there in the ape genome.

Why couldn't mutations add that genetic stuff?

And yeah I know you think mutations will put it there but you are way underestimating how different human beings are from apes.

At the genetic level, just 2% different. We have measured it. Can you please explain why this is a problem?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 646 by Faith, posted 07-02-2019 11:38 PM		Faith has not replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10296

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 7.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 661 of 785 (856835)
07-03-2019 11:03 AM

Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
07-03-2019 9:48 AM

Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality

Faith writes:

I don't think anyone here has ever been convinced of ANY creationist's views about anything.

That's because we present facts and creationists are not swayed by facts. What we have done is convince many others that creationism is a failed religious dogma impervious to evidence. You have been instrumental in this task.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 653 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:48 AM		Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 663 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 11:39 AM		Taq has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	Skylink
Post Volume:	Total: 919,429 Year: 6,686/9,624 Month: 26/238 Week: 26/22 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0