|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Well my prophecy came true with a couple of days. Fastest yet.
Basically you're not interested because you've begun to realise that you're making shit up that you can't defend, yet again. 'Kind' has no objective descriptive value. Done.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 595 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it?
That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How very strange of you. I never had the ambition to create a Linnaean chart for creationism, I certainly kjnew I was never going to tackle insects. or sea creatures. I just wanted to spell out Kind up to as far as I could take it with animals I happen to think about a lot. I'm very happy to see where the dog Kind fits into Linnaeus and thank you for the chart that helped in that. Not all creatures are going to fit the "Family" category. I already know Birds don't. So I will probably go on with it at some other time.
Thanks again. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Haven't I answered all this some time before? I vaguely remember having done that. Anyway:
Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it? I hardly think so. I know breeding practices have changed in recent times after they learned that purebreds are subject to diseases. Now they go for some hybridization to keep the animals healthy, hopefully withtou loxing the breed's best qualities. Going for the purebred is what I have in mind of course because that's where the genetic reduction is most dramatic and takes its toll in compromised health. The point is that when you breed for certain characteristics you are eliminating the characteristcs you don't want in your breed. This eventually leads to homozygosity for the characteristics you are breeding for. Too much homozygosity is bad for the animal's health but it is what creates a purebred. I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah. It is a wonderful animal,but its survival is threatened because its genetic depletion makes it vulnerable and compromises its ability to reproduce. The cheetah came about by a drastic reduction in numbers in Nature, which is how purebreds are made through domestic breeding, and the genetic result is the same as if it were intentionally bred for its dharacteristics. Dogs never lose their ability to reproduce with other breeds even when drastically genetically reduced, but the cheetah has lost that ability.
That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning? Eh what? Genetic reduction or depletion goes with the formation of new phenotypes. You put the phenotype in your toaster.
quote: An increase in the number of chromosomes doesn't mean there's no genetic depletion if that's what you're getting at. Sometimes genes duplicate, sometimes chromosomes break apart. Nothing new is added. Yes some species can be bred to produce an enormous number of varieties or subspecies with wonderful new characteristics. It's built into their genome. It's microevolution, which is variation built into the genome. You get marvelous new phenotypes from such breeding. This built-in ability of the genome of all creatures gives us human beings the ability to make all kinds of changes and improvements in all creatures as God commanded us to do. But it's always only variation within the genome, getting new variations on the creature, not evolution in the sense of the ToE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Thanks again. Your welcome, but you know that's as basic as basic gets. I really wish you'd actually learn something.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What haven't I "learned?" I've learned how Linnaeus organized things in some categories. But I need a different approach since I'm trying to define the Kind. Meanwhile I "learned" the other point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah. It is a wonderful animal,but its survival is threatened because its genetic depletion makes it vulnerable and compromises its ability to reproduce. The cheetah came about by a drastic reduction in numbers in Nature, which is how purebreds are made through domestic breeding, and the genetic result is the same as if it were intentionally bred for its characteristics. Uh? Where are you getting that from? Cheetah's are related to pumas and lynx and evolved in the usual way millions of years ago. Cheetah - WikipediaJe 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: What haven't I "learned?" Pretty much everything.
I've learned how Linnaeus organized things in some categories. But I need a different approach since I'm trying to define the Kind. Meanwhile I "learned" the other point of view. There isn't another point of view, if you're arranging organisms by morphology and genetic relatedness you are forced to arrive at our current taxonomy because that is how it is done. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post. Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But Faith, you made that up. Cheetahs went through a very severe bottleneck but you’re the only one who claims that it changed them much.
quote: Nobody agreed with you Faith. There is no moving the goal posts. That’s another thing you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I learned is that the Kind has very little to do with the Linnaean taxonomy. The Family category does it for dogs but not for birds and probably other creatures will be all over the Linnaean chart as far as establishing their Kind goes. The Kind is ultimately genetically defined and that works just fine for the Family level for dogs, but nothing above that on the taxonomic chart is relevant except for academic purposes. Sure, Mammal, Carnivore, but irrelevant for defining the original created Kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh fer. Read up on the concerns of conservationists for the terrible endangerment of the cheetah due to its genetically depleted condition due to the bottleneck/Founder Effect. I didn't make that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:? I didn’t say that you made that up. I explained that what you made up was the idea that the bottleneck caused significant morphological changes.
I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah Cheetahs were cheetah’s before the bottleneck. Your idea that the bottleneck produced the cheetah is an invention. I know because I asked you for evidence and you had none (and I looked and found none myself),
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see, well when you drastically reduce genetic diversity it stands to reason you are going to get phenotypic change because that's how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I don’t think you can call it learning when you are making it up. You haven’t made any serious effort to determine Kind boundaries.
quote: And how would you know that? You haven’t discussed the actual genetics at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024