Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,225 Year: 5,482/9,624 Month: 507/323 Week: 4/143 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 170 of 331 (475352)
07-15-2008 12:00 PM


How many micros equal a macro?
To those who accept microevolution but rebel in horror at macroevolution, here is a question. I have asked this a number of times, but have yet to receive a suitable answer.
What mechanism prevents a lot of little micros from adding up, over time, to a macro? And how does this mechanism know when to stop the little micros from occurring, lest they add up to that macro.
How do it know?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 1:03 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 2:08 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 184 of 331 (475497)
07-16-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 2:08 PM


Re: How many micros equal a macro?
Thanks for attempting to answer my question:
Coyote writes:
To those who accept microevolution but rebel in horror at macroevolution, here is a question. I have asked this a number of times, but have yet to receive a suitable answer.
What mechanism prevents a lot of little micros from adding up, over time, to a macro? And how does this mechanism know when to stop the little micros from occurring, lest they add up to that macro.
How do it know?
Analysis:
That's a really good question. I will try to dress my answer up nicely so that you might think it is "suitable".
The answer lay in the concept of genetic capacity. There is a limit to any genome. Now science is very young here, but you will see this term used widely in the literature. It always reflects a limit within the genome.
And that limit doesn't apply when there are mutations. A mutation can change the status quo.
For instance, in dog evolution, you can get a great dane, but you cannot get a dog the size of brontasaurus. The same applies in the opposite direction, you cannot get a dog the size of an ant. There is a limit on size as well as just about every other feature of the dog.
Not so. Going back into the fossil record you can see that with sufficient micros the changes go up to that "boundary" and charge charge right on past it. That is all the little the micros adding up to a macro.
You can breed cows to produce more milk, but there is a limit to how much milk any cow can produce.
But with enough time and selection pressure you could breed something other than a cow.
Now to have evolution in the first place you need mutations, drift, and selection. In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population. That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased.
Not so. Mutations can produce new capacities! Remember the recent E. coli study where the little critters, through several micros, evolved the ability to eat another food in their environment? That was a new capacity! It was not present in the original population. It took either two or three separate mutations (micros) but added up to a new beneficial mutation. And because that species was defined on the basis of its diet, it formed a new species in doing so. "Genetic capacity" was increased, not decreased.
We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased. That is what is needed to produce the type of evolution from bacteria to man. Simple genetic capacities increasing over time. But we do not see this in nature. What we see in nature is degradation and stasis. We don't see the gradual increasing of genetic capacities. But we do see big imaginations.
Not so. We do see "genetic capacity" change or even increase. Your ideas of "degradation and stasis" are probably influenced by the concept of "the fall" but have no reality in biology and genetics. Another example: the mutation(s) that allowed for lighter colored skin among early Europeans. That allowed people to move farther north, as with lighter skin the body produced more vitamin D from the weaker northern sunlight. That is an example of a new trait, an increased capacity, and something that was not there originally.
But you have been sidetracked from the original question. What is the mechanism that prevents those micros from adding up to a macro?
You presented several tentative answers, but they neither addressed the main question nor were they correct.
Your primary claim was that there is a "genetic capacity" which limits differentiation, but evidence shows that this is not the case.
I consider that you have not suitably answered the question of a mechanism preventing macroevolution.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 196 of 331 (475609)
07-16-2008 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid
07-16-2008 11:25 PM


Re: Let's dance on it!
In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.
That's easy. Going way back, the opposable thumb.
More recently the tall narrow nasal structure of Europeans as opposed to the wide short nasal structure of Africans.
Upright posture with striding/running gait in early Homo groups, used for adapting to the grasslands as opposed to the forests. Foot, knee, and hip morphology all come into play there as well.
Various adaptations in hyoid bone morphology and placement which allowed fully human speech.
You do realize that all of these mutations have to be judged as beneficial only in relation to their local environments, don't you? What works for the Watutsi does not work for the Pygmy, and they don't live that far apart. And both differ from the Bushmen. Each has mutations which are beneficial in relation to the environment in which they live.
But if you debate like many other creationists I have encountered, you'll probably deny all of this, and try to just wave it away. (Perhaps you'll surprise me!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 11:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 208 of 331 (476133)
07-21-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Nonsense
Now let me also make sure that you understand the logical fallacy that the interpretation of evidence is not evidence. So you are going to have a hard time with me using the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence. I will let you use the bones and dating of the bones as evidence, but the interpretation of that evidence is not evidence. (otherwise you have circular reasoning which I'm sure no evoists use, right???)
Check into the scientific method, and how it actually works, and get back to us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:35 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 212 of 331 (476142)
07-21-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by LucyTheApe
07-21-2008 1:11 PM


Re: Dead dog walking
Baggage..
autoimmune hemolytic anemia, hemophilia, von Willebrand's disease, immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, etc. etc. blah blah ad nauseum...
Man made him, only God can save him.
Rubbish!
Nothing that a little natural selection won't fix up in a jiffie!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-21-2008 1:11 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:35 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 242 of 331 (476371)
07-23-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid
07-23-2008 9:24 AM


Re: THE TOPIC is dogs compared to horse species changes
You seem to think, as many scientists do that the fossil record somehow declares ancestorship. It doesn't. That is an interpretation of the fossil record. First we were presented with linear trees of this horse ancestorship. These pictures are still taught today. This was an interpretation of the fossils. Today with cladistics we have a branching tree of horse evolution. That is an interpretation of the evidence. A creationist interpretation would be one where the "branches" may represent different kinds of animals. The cladistic chart represents the same thing except it has one common ancestor eohippus. The creationist chart would have multiple trunks. In the case of the 55my charts, the creationist chart may only have 2-4 kinds. Not every fossil find is a different type of animal.
You are making the common creationist error often made with "assumption." Just because scientists use a particular assumption in a line of reason doesn't automatically make it incorrect. Likewise, because a theory is an "interpretation" of a particular set of facts does not make that interpretation automatically incorrect.
In fact, creationists often use "theory" and "assumption" interchangeably to mean "its wrong because scripture says so and we know that, and you can't prove it anyway." Now you are adding "interpretation" to this list.
Please note that both modern science and creationism agree with certain aspects of evolution. It is a strawman argument to suggest otherwise. I know of no reputable creationist website that doesn't agree with observable repeatable micrevolution.
But creationists have yet to propose a mechanism whereby all of those micros are prohibited from forming a macro over time. They repeatedly state that macros can't happen, but have yet to provide a mechanism that prevents them.
Interpretation of evidence is not evidence. (I will repeat this many times, as it is a common misunderstanding of science and logic.)
And it is creationist nonsense. Feel free to repeat it as much as you like.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-23-2008 9:24 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 247 of 331 (476416)
07-23-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by AlphaOmegakid
07-23-2008 2:32 PM


Re: Nonsense
I know this is off topic, but your question is important. Anyone can do science, but we are not all "qualified" scientists. Actually most of us are like the jurors in a CSI case. There are always two sets of "qualified" experts. One for the defence and on for the plaintiff. I hope you don't think that there aren't christian creationist scientists, because they are many. Certainly a minority, but many.
Anyone can do science if they follow the scientific method. Creationists tend not to do that.
Have you ever looked at the "Statements of Faith" or the equivalent of the "scientists" on Answers in Genesis and several other similar websites? Those statements of belief actually prohibit their members from following the scientific method. Here is a link to the Statements of Belief of the Creation Research Society. See how much science you find there.
I personally work with in a scientific field. I do "science" everyday, but I am not a scientist as most in this forum obviously are not. For me, I'm a logician. When I see logical problems, I start to question. With evolution we have a multitude of logical problems....
Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.
Nonsense. That's creation "science" rather than real science.
For a lot more information on this see the Index of Creationist Claims.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-23-2008 2:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by AdminNosy, posted 07-23-2008 5:07 PM Coyote 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