Against the theory of evolution
Anthony022071
for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
that science claims to have happened.
It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
environmental pressures to affect it.
Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
experiment.
Dana Tweedy
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,
? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
> attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,
Such as?
>ignores the facts of reproduction
Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
success is a major part of evolution.
> and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,
what "obscure processes"?
> and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
All science makes use of methodological naturalism. How, exactly
could science operate without "proceeding" from methodological
naturalism?
>
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances.
Actually, the theory treats species as populations of living things.
Change is the result of "outside circumstances" acting on variations
in the population.
>Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
Evolution does not "gloss over" the facts of reproduction. It is
deeply concerned with the facts of reproduction.
>
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction.
Evolution is change in populations over time, not simply during the
act of reproduction. Change takes place in the population, not in
the individual.
> Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids.
Once a subspecies can no longer breed with it's parent population, it
is a new species. Your claims here are false.
> No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
Sorry, but that's not what's been observed.
>
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,
Of course, environmental factors affect populations for much longer
than the moment of conception. Evolution requires differential
reproductive success over the lifetime of the individual, not just
when it's conceived.
What happens at the moment of conception is the combination of the
genetic material of the parents, plus whatever unique mutations the
individual may possess. These, multiplied by the number of
conceptions in the population is what makes up the gene pool that the
environment then affects.
>by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
However environmental pressures affect the individual throughout it's
life, not simply at the moment of conception. If the individual has
traits which help it survive, and produce more offspring, it's genetic
material gets passed on to the next generation. Environment doesn't
determine what traits an individual is born with, but it does
determine what traits will more likely lead to more descendants.
>
> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
>
It can, however be inferred from homologies, including bones....
> or even genetic material,
Every court in the nation would disagree, as genetics is used in
standard paternity tests.
> because descent has to do with
> reproductive history,
Actually, descent has a great deal to do with reproductive history.
If your parents didn't have sex, you won't either.
> which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> experiment.
One doesn't have to reproduce past events in order to study them. All
one need do is examine the evidence, and repeat the observations.
DJT
Adam R.
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:b79a10d0-ee22-415b...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Even while t.o is down, the rain of twaddle continues. If an idiot babbles
on usenet and no one is listening,...?
--
Adam
David Hare-Scott
This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,
Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the process.
> by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
Wrong! The environment determines which individual creatures get a chance
to breed and the number of reproducing offspring the breeding produces, this
alters gene frequency in the subsequent generations and so drives evolution.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
>
True but you have the same red herring here expressed slightly differently
because there doesn't need to be any environmental pressure at the moment of
conception for gene frequencies to alter in subsequent generations.
You should read a basic biology book which will explain this better than I
can. All you have done is knocked down a straw man.
David
Anthony022071
> On Jan 18, 2:45 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> > for causal connections,
>
> ? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
>
analysis of species that are proposed in evolution theory are often
illogical.
> > attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > have have,
>
> Such as?
>
Such as the supposed ability of environmental factors to cause a
species to evolve into something really different.
> >ignores the facts of reproduction
>
> Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
> success is a major part of evolution.
>
The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
amount to evolution. The populations that survive are still of the
same general species as their ancestors.
> > and instead focuses upon
> > obscure processes,
>
> what "obscure processes"?
>
Those of natural selection,which can be any number of environmental
factors and adaptational needs,which are supposed to cause species to
radically change,as if organisms had a will their own to change their
structures to survive.
John Harshman
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
That's nice. Can you back up any of this?
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances.
No it doesn't. Do you know anything whatsoever about evolutionary biology?
> Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
Population genetics deals with individuals in populations. What's the
problem?
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction.
What limits? How do you know?
> Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
If so, it isn't speciation. But how do you know any of this?
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
You really don't understand natural selection. It can act at any time of
life, from conception until the end of reproductive life, or, through
kin selection, after. Anything that affects expected lifetime
reproductive success is subject to selection.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
That would be a strong argument if selection were somehow limited to the
moment of conception, but I can't imagine why you think so, unless you
somehow accuse selection of causing mutations, and suppose that
mutations happen chiefly during conception. (Neither of these is true.)
> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> experiment.
Then you claim that in order to know something happened, you have to see
it happening. Do you follow this rule in everyday life, or only when
trying to deny evolution?
Nope, science works by forming theories to explain data, not by seeing
things happen. Common descent explains the data quite nicely, but you
haven't been able to come up with any viable alternative. Until you do,
common descent will remain the theory of choice.
deadrat
> On Jan 18, 8:11 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2:45 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
>>> for causal connections,
>>
>> ? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
>>
> The causal connections or "mechanisms" and inferences from cross-
> analysis of species that are proposed in evolution theory are often
> illogical.
That at least parses. Do you have any argument to back up this assertion?
>>> attributes powers to natural causes they do
>>> have have,
>>
>> Such as?
>>
> Such as the supposed ability of environmental factors to cause a
> species to evolve into something really different.
You understand, do you not, that this ability is "supposed"; it's been
observed.
>>> ignores the facts of reproduction
>>
>> Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
>> success is a major part of evolution.
>>
> The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
> amount to evolution. The populations that survive are still of the
> same general species as their ancestors.
What is a "general species"? Ancestors and their current descendants
need not be of the same species. Do you know what "differential
reproductive success" means?
>>> and instead focuses upon
>>> obscure processes,
>>
>> what "obscure processes"?
>>
> Those of natural selection,which can be any number of environmental
> factors and adaptational needs,which are supposed to cause species to
> radically change,as if organisms had a will their own to change their
> structures to survive.
OK, so you don't know what differential reproductive success means.
Organisms don't have a will of their own to change their genome. That
happens when some offspring adapt better to environmental conditions,
i.e., their genetic changes survive and others' don't.
jillery
wrote:
<waving hand wildly in the back of the room> OOh OOh! I can answer
that! Environmental factors do not "cause" species to change.
Environmental factors are the template against which natural selection
chooses among phenotypes. The genotype is part of what determines the
phenotype. The genotype changes with each generation as the result of
undirected mutation.
deadrat
Very close, but it won't work for the literal minded. Rephrase without
metaphor, otherwise he's gonna say, "How can natural selection choose
things; it doesn't have a will of its own."
jillery
Fair enough. Suggestions?
Stuart
wrote:
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,
he means well established mechanisms.
attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,
Well sure.
ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,
he means well known processes like selection.
and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
being that it has had 500 years or so of unparalleled success..
>
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances.
He means Changing environments and competition force shanges in
selection..
Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
Living things make babies. He's just confused where the stork comes
in.
>
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction.
He means he didn't realize that speciation doesn't normally occur in a
single generation.
Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
He means he doensn't understand the concept of ring species.
>
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
He means he doesn't understand the concept of differential
reproductive
propensity.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
He means. Oey Vey, ..
>
> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> experiment.
He means he's not sure who his daddy is.
There, I think I made sense of it.
Stuart
Ernest Major
<b79a10d0-ee22-415b...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 <anthon...@ameritech.net> writes
>It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
>environmental pressures to affect it.
Very good. You've produced an argument against saltationism by natural
selection.
But do you really think that anyone is stupid enough to fall for this as
an argument against common descent with modification though the agency
of natural selection and other processes?
--
alias Ernest Major
gdgu...@gmail.com
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,
Dead creatures, having not lived long enough to reach your "moment of
conception", seldom reproduce. And that's just one of many ways in
which your argument is silly.
Greg Guarino
deadrat
A species is a population of organisms, each of which with a genotype
similar to but not necessarily exactly the same as others of the
species. Through mostly-faithful but imperfect operations of
replication, each cohort of a species passes on its genome to the next
generation, preserving the slightly-dissimilar nature of the genotypes.
Each of these genotypes expresses a phenotype, and as the genotypes are
different, there will also be a variation in the phenotypes.
As populations meet their environment that hasn't the resources to
support every member, some of the variations in the phenotypes, called
traits, will enable their carriers to survive in greater numbers than
those who don't carry these traits. The survivors will be around to
pass these traits onto their descendants.
The changes to the species' distribution of genotypes in each generation
is the result of the numerous confrontations of the members of the
species with the environment, which will statistically favor some
phenotypes over others.
~~~~~~
Alas, verbose and clumsy. It's hard to communicate without relying on
metaphor. I count at least half a dozen in the three paragraphs above,
and I wouldn't be surprised if others find more. But I think these have
meanings obvious enough that they don't anthropomorphize the description.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 18, 8:11 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2:45 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
>>> for causal connections,
>>
>> ? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
>>
> The causal connections or "mechanisms" and inferences from cross-
> analysis of species that are proposed in evolution theory are often
> illogical.
>
>>> attributes powers to natural causes they do
>>> have have,
>>
>> Such as?
>>
> Such as the supposed ability of environmental factors to cause a
> species to evolve into something really different.
Why do you assume that natural causes don't have such a capability?
>
>>> ignores the facts of reproduction
>>
>> Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
>> success is a major part of evolution.
>>
> The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
> amount to evolution.
No one claims it does. Evolution is change in allele frequencies in
populations over generations.
> The populations that survive are still of the
> same general species as their ancestors.
Unless they are so genetically different that they are unable to breed
with the parent population. The idea of "chronospecies" takes into
account that modern populations can't interbreed with ancestral
populations.
>
>>> and instead focuses upon
>>> obscure processes,
>>
>> what "obscure processes"?
>>
> Those of natural selection,which can be any number of environmental
> factors and adaptational needs,which are supposed to cause species to
> radically change,as if organisms had a will their own to change their
> structures to survive.
Natural selection is hardly a "obscure" process. Of course, no
practicing biologist claims that organisms will the changes in
populations. Natural selection is an entirely unconscious process, and
affects populations without any regard to what the individual members of
the population want.
DJT
>
>
chris thompson
How about _before_ the moment of conception?
Male damselflies remove essentially all of a competing male's sperm
from the female's storage organ.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5300k3l1m1gh636/
Chris
Mark Isaak
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
> have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon obscure
> processes,and because it proceeds from methodological naturalism,which
> is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about. Like,
say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand fashions.
Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Anthony022071
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
Anthony022071
> On Jan 19, 12:17 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 8:11 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 18, 2:45 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > > > for causal connections,
>
> > > ? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
>
> > The causal connections or "mechanisms" and inferences from cross-
> > illogical.
>
> > > > attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > > > have have,
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > Such as the supposed ability of environmental factors to cause a
> > species to evolve into something really different.
>
> > > >ignores the facts of reproduction
>
> > > Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
> > > success is a major part of evolution.
>
> > The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
> > amount to evolution. The populations that survive are still of the
> > same general species as their ancestors.
>
> > > > and instead focuses upon
> > > > obscure processes,
>
> > > what "obscure processes"?
>
> > Those of natural selection,which can be any number of environmental
> > factors and adaptational needs,which are supposed to cause species to
> > radically change,as if organisms had a will their own to change their
> > structures to survive.
>
> <waving hand wildly in the back of the room> OOh OOh! I can answer
> that! Environmental factors do not "cause" species to change.
>
to evolve either.
> Environmental factors are the template against which natural selection
> chooses among phenotypes.
>
Natural selection has to do with environmental factors causing species
to adapt and change. You can't detach natural selection from
environmental factors.
Frank J
Explain why famous evolution-*denier* Michael Behe accepts common
descent, and why none of his DI buddies, including those who seem to
deny it, never challenge him directly.
Frank J
It wasn't meant to be. But Mark's book is. Did you read it?
Ray Martinez
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
>
You are absolutely correct: nothing makes sense in evolutionary theory
because the same is Materialism. It's just-so because there is no
alternative.
Ray
> ....to say that natural selection (environmental
hersheyh
>
> > > The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> > > for causal connections,
>
> > ? Can you explain what you mean here? The sentence doesn't parse.
>
> The causal connections or "mechanisms" and inferences from cross-
> analysis of species that are proposed in evolution theory are often
> illogical.
Examples? Specifics? Otherwise you are just another person who
believes that, if he says it, six is magically identical to eighteen.
I recommend that you stop smoking salvia and don't buy a weapon.
>
> > > attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > > have have,
>
> > Such as?
>
> Such as the supposed ability of environmental factors to cause a
> species to evolve into something really different.
What counts as "something really different" in your book? Evolution
only requires that a new species be reproductively (mostly) isolated
from its parent species. It does not require that a mongoose give
birth to a goose directly as opposed to both species being merely the
most recent in a very long line of species on both sides from a very
distant common ancestor with the most recent ancestor of both being
only marginally different from a goose on one side and a mongoose on
the other. Of course if you have evidence that the universe really is
only 6000 years old and the earth only 6000 years minus a few days,
then you might have an argument.
>
> > >ignores the facts of reproduction
>
> > Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
> > success is a major part of evolution.
>
> The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
> amount to evolution. The populations that survive are still of the
> same general species as their ancestors.
Until they aren't. You fail to realize how much you share with your
fellow creatures, including bacteria. Most differences in mammals are
minor modification of form, which is quite plastic, being the reason
you can recognize yourself in the mirror.
> > > and instead focuses upon
> > > obscure processes,
>
> > what "obscure processes"?
>
> Those of natural selection,which can be any number of environmental
> factors and adaptational needs,which are supposed to cause species to
> radically change,as if organisms had a will their own to change their
> structures to survive.
You are describing teleologic change in form due to internal "will",
ala Lamarck, not evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is
not "environmental factors and adaptational needs". Natural selection
is what occurs because of the interaction of an organism and its
environments. To the extent that form in particular local environment
affects reproductive success and that form is genetic, natural
selection will occur regardless of the "will" of the organism (I doubt
that bacteria have a "will"; they do have a biochemistry that
interacts with their environment).
David Hare-Scott
It's not much of an argument and you have been given several specific
refutations. Try addressing those who gave you substantive replies if you
want to be taken seriously, your replies so far are, um, somewhat sparse for
a person either wanting to learn or who is committed to their position.
David
John Stockwell
> On Jan 18, 1:45 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> > for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> > obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> > The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> > like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> > morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
> > of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> > existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> > that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>
> > Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> > change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
> > been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> > unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> > how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> > that science claims to have happened.
>
> > It does not make sense....
>
> You are absolutely correct: nothing makes sense in evolutionary theory
> because the same is Materialism. It's just-so because there is no
> alternative.
That pretty much seals the deal. If Ray agrees with you, then you are
a dumbfuck.
John Stockwell
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
Taking it from the bottom of the paragraph, "methodological
naturalism" is
the basis of all the sciences, so, that statement is false. The theory
of evolution
is based on observations of biology.
>
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
Biology is chemistry. The notion of "vitalism" that there is some sort
of biological
force was abandoned more than a century ago.
>
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
Your last sentence is false. Biology changes with each generation.
Each generation
of organisms sports mutations.
>
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
Environmental pressures operate on organisms their entire lives. Those
pressures result in differential reproductive rates, which change the
genetic
content of populations.
>
> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> experiment.
Common descent is tested through a variety of means. The first of
these is, indeed,
comparative anatomy. Today, comparative DNA studies refine this
notion. Common
descent is one of the most powerful and best established facts in all
of science.
You might need to read up on biology if you want to play this debate
game anymore.
Also, you are an atrocious writer.
-John
Anthony022071
> Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>
>
>
> > It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> > have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> > conception,
>
> Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the process.
>
supposed to explain how species originate.
> > by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>
> Wrong! The environment determines which individual creatures get a chance to breed and the number of reproducing offspring the breeding produces, this alters gene frequency in the subsequent generations and so drives evolution.
>
A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
traits that the population already possesed. You can't get extrapolate
the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
evolution.
hersheyh
hersheyh
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
Well, if you are already rejecting "methodological naturalism", why
not just forget trying to explain why evolution doesn't work and just
say that you do not believe in any science that disagrees with your
belief system. After all, if you reject methodological naturalism,
you have no "ruler" aside from your personal belief as to what is
"true".
>
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
>
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations
Natural selection is not a "force" working upon genetic mutations. It
is the observation (made by people long before Darwin, including
Paley) that those genetic mutations ("variants" in older literature)
that are *differentially* affected by a specific local environment
exhibit a specific and significant directional effect on the frequency
of the "variants" in the next generation. We call the variant which
is increased "beneficial" in that environment and the variant which is
reduced "detrimental" in that environment.
> has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
Doesn't have to affect the moment of conception. In fact, modern
evolution presumes the same random effects at conception that
Mendelian genetics describes (with the exception of the relatively
rare alleles that exhibit meiotic drive). What evolution affects is
the proportions of genetic factors that will exist in the reproductive
parent population.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
But there is plenty of room and time for the environment to affect the
organisms after conception and before the organism reproduces. [Or,
for single-celled organisms, between cell divisions. Not all
organisms undergo "conception."]
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>>
>> This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>>
>>
>>
>>> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>>> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>>> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>>> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>>> conception,
>>
>> Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the process.
>>
> Conception is the key to origination.
Only to the individual, not to the population.
> And natural selection is
> supposed to explain how species originate.
It's part of the process, but not the only part.
>
>>> by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>>
>> Wrong! The environment determines which individual creatures get a chance to breed and the number of reproducing offspring the breeding produces, this alters gene frequency in the subsequent generations and so drives evolution.
>>
> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
> evolution.
Why not? Of course, the "process of elimination" is only part of the
process of evolution.
> Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> traits that the population already possesed.
Except that mutation is always adding new traits.
> You can't get extrapolate
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
Maybe not, but real evolution doesn't resemble your strawman version.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ok, but where do you get the idea that "adaptational needs" caused
species to evolve in the first place? Populations evolve regardless of
the needs of the individual, or the species.
>
>> Environmental factors are the template against which natural selection
>> chooses among phenotypes.
>>
> Natural selection has to do with environmental factors causing species
> to adapt and change.
A population may "adapt" *by* changing, unless they go extinct.
Environmental factors act on variations in the population. If the
environment is stable, the species may not show much change. If the
environment changes, some of the variations in the population are more
advantageous.
> You can't detach natural selection from
> environmental factors.
Why would you want to?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 18, 1:45 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
>> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
>> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
>> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
>> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>>
>> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
>> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
>> morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
>> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
>> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
>> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>>
>> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
>> change and variation in the act of reproduction. Speciation has not
>> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
>> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
>> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
>> that science claims to have happened.
>>
>> It does not make sense....
>
> You are absolutely correct:
Actually, Ray, he's not. He's made several errors. As an exercise,
let's see if you can point out where he made those errors.
> nothing makes sense in evolutionary theory
> because the same is Materialism.
Doesn't follow, Ray. Even if evolutionary theory were the "same as
Materialism" (it's not), that's no reason why it would, or would not
make sense.
> It's just-so because there is no
> alternative.
There are always alternatives, however none of the scientific
alternatives have the evidence to support them, and none of the non
scientific alternatives are scientific.
DJT
Walter Bushell
<c3473c2b-a02e-400b...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
. ><snip;>.
>
> >
> > Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> > structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> > reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> > it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> > experiment.
>
> He means he's not sure who his daddy is.
>
> There, I think I made sense of it.
>
> Stuart
"It's a wise child that knows his own father."
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
John Harshman
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>>
>> This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>>
>>
>>
>>> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>>> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>>> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>>> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>>> conception,
>> Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the process.
>>
> Conception is the key to origination. And natural selection is
> supposed to explain how species originate.
You seem unusually dense. Conception is not the key to speciation.
Conception is only the combination of two haploid genomes into one
diploid genome. No evolution, to speak of, happens during conception.
Speciation is usually a gradual process in which new alleles spread
through a population. If a population is split into two, perhaps by a
geographic barrier, different alleles end up being spread through the
two populations. Eventually, enough different alleles can result in
genetic incompatibilities between populations, and we call that
speciation. What does conception have to do with that process?
>>> by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>> Wrong! The environment determines which individual creatures get a chance to breed and the number of reproducing offspring the breeding produces, this alters gene frequency in the subsequent generations and so drives evolution.
>>
> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
> evolution.
It does when coupled with a source of new alleles.
> Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> traits that the population already possesed.
Not actually true. Different combinations of the same alleles can result
in novel features. But again, mutation is the main source of novelty.
Selection is creative in that it can build up a series of small changes
into a big change. Is it your claim that mutations never happen, or that
they can never be beneficial?
> You can't get extrapolate
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Jeffrey Turner
> On Jan 18, 8:11 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> ignores the facts of reproduction
>>
>> Again, ? Reproduction, in the form of differential reproductive
>> success is a major part of evolution.
>>
> The survival of some populations and the extinction of others does not
> amount to evolution. The populations that survive are still of the
> same general species as their ancestors.
Hence cladistics. We are all still fish. Except that a clade isn't a
species. Not even a "general species."
--Jeff
--
"We can have democracy in this country,
or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
--Louis D. Brandeis
deadrat
Like the allele change that enabled some bacteria to feed on nylon?
> You can't get extrapolate
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
Bold claim. Any evidence?
David Hare-Scott
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>>
>> This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>>
>>
>>
>>> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>>> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>>> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental
>>> factors have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>>> conception,
>>
>> Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the
>> process.
>>
> Conception is the key to origination. And natural selection is
> supposed to explain how species originate.
>
Nice word play. Pull the other one it has a bell on it.
>>> by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>>
>> Wrong! The environment determines which individual creatures get a
>> chance to breed and the number of reproducing offspring the breeding
>> produces, this alters gene frequency in the subsequent generations
>> and so drives evolution.
>>
> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
> evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> traits that the population already possesed. You can't get extrapolate
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
The more you say the more it tends to confirm my first comment - you are a
Loki. But keep going it has been dull here lately.
David
jillery
Or citrate?
>
> > You can't get extrapolate
> > the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> > evolution.
>
> Bold claim. Any evidence?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
You noticed that too?
Steven L.
"Stuart" <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3473c2b-a02e-400b...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 18, 11:45 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
> > The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> > for causal connections,
>
> he means well established mechanisms.
>
> attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > have have,
>
> Well sure.
>
> ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> > obscure processes,
>
> he means well known processes like selection.
>
> and because it proceeds from methodological
> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> being that it has had 500 years or so of unparalleled success..
>
> >
> > The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> > like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> > morph according to outside circumstances.
>
> He means Changing environments and competition force shanges in
> selection..
>
> Living species are composed
> > of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> > existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> > that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>
> Living things make babies. He's just confused where the stork comes
> in.
> >
> > Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> > change and variation in the act of reproduction.
>
> He means he didn't realize that speciation doesn't normally occur in a
> single generation.
I think the problem is that the entire notion of "species" is arbitrary,
a construct invented by Man to describe one or two screencaps of the
movie of life on Earth. Zoologists went out and observed that within
the very short time frame of human civilization, animals that look like
THIS don't seem to interbreed with animals that look like THAT, and
presto! They classified two different species.
Unless someone invents a practical time machine, we can't go back in
time and see which now-extinct animals could or could not interbreed
with other now-extinct animals. We have to guess based on the fossil
record. And as we saw this past year with Triceratops and Torosaurus,
scientists sometimes get it wrong.
And as we've seen with ring species, the boundary isn't sharply drawn
either.
So this reverence (no pun intended) that creationists have for "species"
is misplaced. There's no gene for "species" in DNA. It's an arbitrary
boundary which scientists draw--sometimes incorrectly--around a bunch of
animals.
-- Steven L.
Mark Isaak
> On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs for
>> > causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
>> > have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
>> > obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
>> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>>
>> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about.
>> Like, say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand
>> fashions. Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>
> That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
You did not make an argument. You made a bunch of false assertions about
a subject you literally know less than nothing about. And if you cared
to learn anything about that subject, you would have done so already, so
there is little point in correcting your falsehoods; pointing out that
they are wrong is about as good as one can do.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net>:
>On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
>> > for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
>> > have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon obscure
>> > processes,and because it proceeds from methodological naturalism,which
>> > is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about. Like,
>> say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand fashions.
>> Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
What argument? All I see is a set of very broad assertions
amounting to "I don't understand either science or the
evidence". Was there some actual argument you wished to
make, one involving specific objections to specific items?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Anthony022071
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:41:38 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> >> > Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs for
> >> > causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
> >> > have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> >> > obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> >> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> >> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about.
> >> Like, say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand
> >> fashions. Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>
> > That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
>
> You did not make an argument. You made a bunch of false assertions about
> a subject you literally know less than nothing about. And if you cared
> to learn anything about that subject, you would have done so already, so
> there is little point in correcting your falsehoods; pointing out that
> they are wrong is about as good as one can do.
>
analyze them with reference with to known observable facts,to see if
the arguments make logical sense or if they are non-sequiturs.
These are not false assertions,they are facts:
Species are composed of individuals that come into existence through
acts of reproduction.
Descent has everything to do with acts of reproduction.
It is impossible to know of reproductive connections between species
that have never been known to be compatible.
Speciation occurs during reproduction.
Speciation has not been observed to lead to anything more than sub-
species,and sub-species of prior ones.
Thus,the radical kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened
could not have happened through the kinds of speciation that have been
observed,no matter how many times they occur.
Environmental pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at
the moment when organisms come into existence.
Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
organisms.
Changes in allele frequencies in a population only amount to minor
physical changes in the population,and do not lead to the radical
kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened.
Ernest Major
<9ea97f92-6b27-4b66...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 <anthon...@ameritech.net> writes
Is it also impossible to know that Pluto orbits the Sun? or that
Yellowstone is a volcano. Because it seems to me that a similar degree
of radical skepticism is required to assert the impossibility of
knowledge in each case.
>
>Speciation occurs during reproduction.
Speciation may occur during reproduction (polyploidy due to the union of
unreduced gametes), but it does not universally, or even commonly, do
so. If you understood the theory of evolution, you would know that
speciation is inferred to be commonly a prolonged process - reproduction
occurs during speciation, rather than vice versa.
>
>Speciation has not been observed to lead to anything more than sub-
>species,and sub-species of prior ones.
You had conceded more than this earlier. Spartina anglica is not a
subspecies. Nor is Senecio cambriensis.
>Thus,the radical kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened
>could not have happened through the kinds of speciation that have been
>observed,no matter how many times they occur.
That appears to be a non-sequitur, even if you restrict yourself to the
modes of speciation which have been more directly observed.
>
>Environmental pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at
>the moment when organisms come into existence.
That is a red herring. Environmental pressures have considerable bearing
on which organisms participate in the moments when subsequent organisms
come into existence.
>
>Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
>organisms.
That is incorrect. Mutations may have little or no effect. Mutations may
also have great effect.
>
>Changes in allele frequencies in a population only amount to minor
>physical changes in the population,and do not lead to the radical
>kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened.
>
You haven't yet proposed a mechanism which stops changes in allele
frequencies, with corresponding physical changes, from accumulating.
That you have been reduced to the red-herring that "environmental
pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment when
organisms come into existence" suggests that you lack such a mechanism,
which reduces your "argument" to an assertion..
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> On Jan 20, 10:55 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:41:38 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>>>> Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs for
>>>>> causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
>>>>> have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
>>>>> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
>>>>> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>>>> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about.
>>>> Like, say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand
>>>> fashions. Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>>> That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
>> You did not make an argument. You made a bunch of false assertions about
>> a subject you literally know less than nothing about. And if you cared
>> to learn anything about that subject, you would have done so already, so
>> there is little point in correcting your falsehoods; pointing out that
>> they are wrong is about as good as one can do.
>>
> I take the arguments that evolutionists present as they are and I
> analyze them with reference with to known observable facts,to see if
> the arguments make logical sense or if they are non-sequiturs.
>
> These are not false assertions,they are facts:
Some of them are. Let's see.
> Species are composed of individuals that come into existence through
> acts of reproduction.
True. Of course creationists believe this isn't quite true, since
species supposedly believe that some individuals have come into
existence by magical poofing.
> Descent has everything to do with acts of reproduction.
True, if you mean that descent happens through reproduction.
> It is impossible to know of reproductive connections between species
> that have never been known to be compatible.
False. Why should that be true?
> Speciation occurs during reproduction.
False. I'm not sure how you think speciation works.
> Speciation has not been observed to lead to anything more than sub-
> species,and sub-species of prior ones.
False. Speciation leads to species, by definition.
> Thus,the radical kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened
> could not have happened through the kinds of speciation that have been
> observed,no matter how many times they occur.
False. Why would you think so?
> Environmental pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at
> the moment when organisms come into existence.
False. Actually, they do, fairly often. But so what, either way?
> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> organisms.
False. They can have profound effects. By the way, your use of the odd
term "allele mutations" suggests you don't know much about biology.
> Changes in allele frequencies in a population only amount to minor
> physical changes in the population,and do not lead to the radical
> kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened.
False. Of course even if changes in allele frequencies result only in
minor changes, that's enough, since a sequence of minor changes can add
up to a major change. If you disagree, explain what would prevent it.
Two for nine. You can do better.
Anthony022071
> > A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
> > evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> > result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> > traits that the population already possesed.
>
> Like the allele change that enabled some bacteria to feed on nylon?
>
I don't know. The ability for bacteria to eat nylon isn't really a
physical trait. In any case,I wasn't talking about microscopic
organisms.
> > You can't get extrapolate
> > the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> > evolution.
>
> Bold claim. Any evidence?
>
The radical kinds of evolution that are claimed to be possible on
account of changes in allele frequency have not been seen to happen.
It would take far more than changes in allele frequencies,more
unbounded possibilities of speciation and mutations than what has been
observed,for radical kinds of evolution to have happened. Changes in
allele frequency only amount to numerical changes in dominant and
recessive traits that already exist in a population. Is that even
worth calling evolution? You can't get any fundamental change in a
species through that process.
Robert Camp
> On Jan 20, 10:55 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:41:38 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > > On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
<snip bulk of my reply>
I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
post. Then I came upon the following...
> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> organisms.
...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
proudly, uninformed.
RLC
Frank J
You seem to have "missed" my question about Michael Behe, who makes
claims similar to yours. Without getting into the validity of those
claims, I'll remind you that he nevertheless thinks that species share
common ancestors, regardless of what is the cause of large scale
changes. Do you agree with him?
He also thinks that life on Earth has existed for 3-4 billion years.
Again, do you agree?
If you are unsure, best guesses will do.
Anthony022071
> I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
> post. Then I came upon the following...
>
> > Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> > organisms.
>
> ...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
>
> It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
> proudly, uninformed.
>
Hey,I'm just going on what I've read about allele mutations by
scientists and evolutionists. If you know of examples of mutations
that have caused structural changes in organisms,please do me the
service of informing me about them so I can analyze them.
John Harshman
> On Jan 19, 10:13 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
>>> evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
>>> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
>>> traits that the population already possesed.
>> Like the allele change that enabled some bacteria to feed on nylon?
>>
> I don't know. The ability for bacteria to eat nylon isn't really a
> physical trait. In any case,I wasn't talking about microscopic
> organisms.
Ah, but the ability to eat nylon is a physical trait. It involves a new
enzyme. Or do you think enzymes are spiritual? And what does it matter
whether we're talking about microscopic organisms? Does your objection
to evolution cover only animals, and other organisms are allowed to
evolve all they like?
>>> You can't get extrapolate
>>> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
>>> evolution.
>> Bold claim. Any evidence?
>>
> The radical kinds of evolution that are claimed to be possible on
> account of changes in allele frequency have not been seen to happen.
That isn't evidence. At most it's absence of evidence. However, if we
limited our knowledge to things we had actually seen, almost all of
science would disappear. Have you ever seen an atom? Have you ever seen
fusion? Have you ever seen an electron? And of course everyday life
would be impossible too.
> It would take far more than changes in allele frequencies,more
> unbounded possibilities of speciation and mutations than what has been
> observed,for radical kinds of evolution to have happened.
Sorry, but that was word salad. I'm not sure what you mean by unbounded
possibilities here. Why should speciation or mutations be bounded in any
way?
> Changes in
> allele frequency only amount to numerical changes in dominant and
> recessive traits that already exist in a population.
True, but when coupled with a source of new alleles, e.g. mutation, it
allows the possibility of diverging indefinitely from the initial state.
> Is that even
> worth calling evolution? You can't get any fundamental change in a
> species through that process.
You'd be surprised how big a change you can get, but that doesn't matter
if there is a source of new alleles. Which there is.
Anthony022071
> On Jan 18, 4:45 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> > for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> > have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> > obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> > like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> > of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> > existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> > that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>
> > been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> > unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> > how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> > that science claims to have happened.
>
> > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> > conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> > There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> > environmental pressures to affect it.
>
> > structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> > reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> > it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> > experiment.
>
> descent, and why none of his DI buddies, including those who seem to
> deny it, never challenge him directly.
I don't know why or in what sense he accepts common descent,or why his
allies don't chalIenge him on it. I don't use his argument about
irreducible complexity because I think the complexity of organisms is
somewhat besides the point,which is that organisms are purposefully
ordered,and that is evidence enough of intelligent design.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 19, 10:13 pm, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
>>> evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
>>> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
>>> traits that the population already possesed.
>>
>> Like the allele change that enabled some bacteria to feed on nylon?
>>
> I don't know. The ability for bacteria to eat nylon isn't really a
> physical trait. In any case,I wasn't talking about microscopic
> organisms.
>
>>> You can't get extrapolate
>>> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
>>> evolution.
>>
>> Bold claim. Any evidence?
>>
> The radical kinds of evolution that are claimed to be possible on
> account of changes in allele frequency have not been seen to happen.
Actually, they have. Where have you been?
> It would take far more than changes in allele frequencies,more
> unbounded possibilities of speciation and mutations than what has been
> observed,for radical kinds of evolution to have happened.
How much do you think would be required, and why aren't the observed
instances of evolution enough?
> Changes in
> allele frequency only amount to numerical changes in dominant and
> recessive traits that already exist in a population.
Except that mutations add new traits. Why do you keep ignoring this?
> Is that even
> worth calling evolution?
Yes. Why not?
> You can't get any fundamental change in a
> species through that process.
Sure you can. Observe the number of dog breeds that came from wolves.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 20, 10:55 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:41:38 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>>>> Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs for
>>>>> causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
>>>>> have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
>>>>> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
>>>>> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>>
>>>> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about.
>>>> Like, say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand
>>>> fashions. Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>>
>>> That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
>>
>> You did not make an argument. You made a bunch of false assertions about
>> a subject you literally know less than nothing about. And if you cared
>> to learn anything about that subject, you would have done so already, so
>> there is little point in correcting your falsehoods; pointing out that
>> they are wrong is about as good as one can do.
>>
> I take the arguments that evolutionists present as they are and I
> analyze them with reference with to known observable facts,
But you don't seem to be aware of a great number of those facts.
> to see if
> the arguments make logical sense or if they are non-sequiturs.
And how do you determine this?
>
> These are not false assertions,they are facts:
>
> Species are composed of individuals that come into existence through
> acts of reproduction.
Yes, so is any other taxonomic grouping. What's your point?
>
> Descent has everything to do with acts of reproduction.
Obviously.
>
> It is impossible to know of reproductive connections between species
> that have never been known to be compatible.
Actually, it is possible. You can compare the genome, and see how
closely they match.
>
> Speciation occurs during reproduction.
No, speciation occurs over many generations. Reproduction is only a
part of the process of speciation.
>
> Speciation has not been observed to lead to anything more than sub-
> species,and sub-species of prior ones.
Actually, speciation has been observed to produce new species. If it
produces only sub species, it's not speciation.
> Thus,the radical kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened
> could not have happened through the kinds of speciation that have been
> observed,no matter how many times they occur.
Why not? This is merely an unsupported assertion.
>
> Environmental pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at
> the moment when organisms come into existence.
It doesn't have to. Environmental pressures affect populations over the
lifetime of the individuals.
>
> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> organisms.
Wrong. Mutations may, or may not have much effect on the morphology.
Certain mutations have enormous change on the "structure" of the organism.
>
> Changes in allele frequencies in a population only amount to minor
> physical changes in the population,
Usually, but those minor changes over time add up.
> and do not lead to the radical
> kinds of evolution that are supposed to have happened.
Why not? What stops them from adding up?
DJT
John Harshman
> On Jan 20, 5:17 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
>> post. Then I came upon the following...
>>
>>> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
>>> organisms.
>> ...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
>>
>> It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
>> proudly, uninformed.
>>
> Hey,I'm just going on what I've read about allele mutations by
> scientists and evolutionists.
I doubt that any scientist you've read has used the term "allele mutation".
> If you know of examples of mutations
> that have caused structural changes in organisms,please do me the
> service of informing me about them so I can analyze them.
Though it's unclear what you think "structural" means, I'm suspecting
that antennipedia might fit the bill. Does it?
hersheyh
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:> Anthony022071 wrote:
>
>
> > > It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> > > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> > > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> > > conception,
>
> > Not important. The moment of conception is NOT the key to the process.
>
> Conception is the key to origination. And natural selection is
> supposed to explain how species originate.
>
>
>
> evolution.
Mutation, of course, is the source of all genetic variation. Mutation
is not a "process of elimination", but the *differential* significant
elimination of variants produced by mutation does cause evolution.
But so does the *differential* non-significant elimination of variants
by chance alone.
> Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> traits that the population already possesed.
Well, duh. Did you somehow think that changes in allele frequencies
changed the frequencies of traits that did not exist in a population?
The source of different alleles is mutation. If you started with a
genetically pure population of organisms, mutations (changes) would
occur and you would have a population with alternate alleles. Natural
selection is when those variant traits due to mutation differ
significantly on the metric of reproductive success. Neutral drift is
when those traits randomly increase or decrease because populations
are not infinite in size. In fact the only mechanism that stabilizes
the allele frequencies is natural selection.
> You can't get extrapolate
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
Again, all evolution by natural selection is about the changes in
frequency of alleles that actually do exist in populations rather than
changes in imaginary alleles. Magically poofing traits or entire
organisms into existence when needed or desired by some entity is
*your* hypothesis, not mine.
Dana Tweedy
What evidence do you have that organisms are "purposely ordered"?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 20, 5:17 pm, Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
>> post. Then I came upon the following...
>>
>>> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
>>> organisms.
>>
>> ...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
>>
>> It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
>> proudly, uninformed.
>>
> Hey,I'm just going on what I've read about allele mutations by
> scientists and evolutionists.
Where, exactly did you read the above? Can you provide a citation by
*any* scientist who claims that "allele mutations have little or no
effect on the structure of organisms"?
I think you either misread, or are mis-remembering.
> If you know of examples of mutations
> that have caused structural changes in organisms,please do me the
> service of informing me about them so I can analyze them.
Sure. Here are some scholarly papers:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4530.full
http://mcb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/4193
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/10/4343.abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p780q72323377634/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.20376/abstract
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707619971
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~browder/virtualembryo/hox.html
Some non scholarly examples:
This one is one of the more spectacular ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennapedia
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/homeotics.gif
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/Bithorax.gif
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=36
>
DJT
hersheyh
Hard to miss the dog who did not bark in the night.
hersheyh
> "Stuart" <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually "species" is the least arbitrary grouping in taxonomy (except
possibly in paleontology, where genus might be less arbitrary and more
useful). For *most* cases, it is pretty easy to determine what is and
what isn't a species with quite reasonable accuracy. But that doesn't
mean that there aren't ambiguous cases, such as the ones you point
out, as there should be when one is looking at a single frame of a
very long motion picture.
>
> Unless someone invents a practical time machine, we can't go back in
> time and see which now-extinct animals could or could not interbreed
> with other now-extinct animals. We have to guess based on the fossil
> record. And as we saw this past year with Triceratops and Torosaurus,
> scientists sometimes get it wrong.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/266lkpq
>
> And as we've seen with ring species, the boundary isn't sharply drawn
> either.
>
> So this reverence (no pun intended) that creationists have for "species"
> is misplaced. There's no gene for "species" in DNA. It's an arbitrary
> boundary which scientists draw--sometimes incorrectly--around a bunch of
> animals.
Actually, creationist "classification" has no reverence for "species",
often broadening the term into meaninglessness by use of the quite
flexible term "kind".
>
> -- Steven L.
hersheyh
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:41:38 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:45:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> >> > Thetheoryof evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs for
> >> > causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do have
> >> > have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> >> > obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> >> > naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
>
> >> Why don't you write about a subject you know a little more about.
> >> Like, say, the influence of the Kondo effect on 12th centry Trobriand
> >> fashions. Then, you probably would not get *everything* wrong.
>
> > That's not much of a refutation of my argument.
>
> You did not make an argument. You made a bunch of false assertions about
> a subject you literally know less than nothing about. And if you cared
> to learn anything about that subject, you would have done so already, so
> there is little point in correcting your falsehoods; pointing out that
> they are wrong is about as good as one can do.
This guy is proof that negative knowledge exists. He would have to
forget everything he knows to merely get back to ignorant.
hersheyh
> On Jan 20, 5:17 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
> > post. Then I came upon the following...
>
> > > Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> > > organisms.
>
> > ...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
>
> > It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
> > proudly, uninformed.
>
> Hey,I'm just going on what I've read about allele mutations by
> scientists and evolutionists.
Then we have a failure to communicate that seems to be on your end.
Namely, you fail to understand what people said. A lot of your ideas
seem to be based on the naive and common creationist idea that
evolution involves a specific single dog giving birth to a canary or
some such magical event.
> If you know of examples of mutations
> that have caused structural changes in organisms,please do me the
> service of informing me about them so I can analyze them.
Antennapedia. Achondroplastic dwarfism. Neoteny in salamanders.
Neoteny in the lineage leading to H. sapiens.
Do you have evidence that the amount of genetic difference between
humans and chimps could not arise in the time available in the two
lineages? All the differences between the two species are known types
of genetic mutations that occur in all organisms with DNA.
Robert Camp
> On Jan 20, 5:17 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I spent a decent amount of time reading and responding to most of your
> > post. Then I came upon the following...
>
> > > Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> > > organisms.
>
> > ...at which point I realized that you are utterly hopeless.
>
> > It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be so willfully, even
> > proudly, uninformed.
>
> Hey,I'm just going on what I've read about allele mutations by
> scientists and evolutionists.
As I implied above, it's not your lack of education on this subject
that bothers me. It's the arrogance with which you presume to make
pronouncements regarding things about which you know very little.
I don't say this to be disagreeable. I'm really trying to understand
how otherwise reasonable people (one of which I assume you are when
you're not discussing this subject) who would normally be loathe to
tell a medical doctor or a judge or a quantum physicist (scratch that,
you've already made it clear that you know better than quantum
physicists) how to do their jobs doesn't see the incongruity in
telling biologists how evolution really works.
Consider that one of the people conversing with you in this thread
(John Harshman) is himself an evolutionary biologist. I'm not saying
you should genuflect when your read his replies, but does it really
make sense to you that you should be lecturing him on what
evolutionary mechanisms are, and are not, capable of?
I ask this in all seriousness. I guess I'm just looking for a little
humility in order to gauge how connected with reality you are (and, as
a consequence, how useful it will be to continue engaging you in
discussion of these issues).
> If you know of examples of mutations
> that have caused structural changes in organisms,please do me the
> service of informing me about them so I can analyze them.
"Structure" can range all the way from protein folding to large scale
homeotic events like the aforementioned antennapedia. Look at some of
Dana's links or do a search on Hox genes. Or if you're truly
interested in learning more, read The Extended Phenotype by Richard
Dawkins.
RLC
Mark Isaak
Species, genera, herds, roadkill, labor unions, football teams,
religions, and book clubs are composed of individuals that come into
existence through acts of reproduction. So what?
Incidentally, how exactly does "act of reproduction" differ from just
plain reproduction?
> Descent has everything to do with acts of reproduction.
I'm glad you know the definition of "descent". That's a start.
> It is impossible to know of reproductive connections between species
> that have never been known to be compatible.
Dead wrong. It may be impossible for *you* to know it, but there are
lots of kinds of evidence besides seeing it happen.
> Speciation occurs during reproduction.
Dead wrong. Most often, speciation occurs during the *absence* of
reproduction.
> Speciation has not been observed to lead to anything more than sub-
> species,and sub-species of prior ones.
Dead wrong. Speciation leads to species, and it has been observed.
> Environmental pressures have little or no bearing upon what happens at
> the moment when organisms come into existence.
Dead wrong. Environmental pressures play quite a big role in determining
whether that moment happens at all. That is hardly "no bearing."
> Allele mutations have little or no effect upon the structure of
> organisms.
Dead wrong. Mutations have been observed to have all kinds of effects,
from negligible to profound. Everything about your structure is an
effect of mutations (among other things).
> Changes in allele frequencies in a population only amount to minor
> physical changes in the population,and do not lead to the radical kinds
> of evolution that are supposed to have happened.
Dead wrong. Minor physical changes add up, leading to radical kinds of
evolution. The fossil record shows as much, not to mention its
theoretical inevitability.
Thank you for demonstrating my point about your profound ignorance of the
subject. I once shared your ignorance. Unlike you, though, I did not
revel in it.
deadrat
> On Jan 19, 6:04 pm, Frank J<f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 4:45 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
<snip/>
>> Explain why famous evolution-*denier* Michael Behe accepts common
>> descent, and why none of his DI buddies, including those who seem to
>> deny it, never challenge him directly.
>
> I don't know why or in what sense he accepts common descent,or why his
> allies don't chalIenge him on it. I don't use his argument about
> irreducible complexity because I think the complexity of organisms is
> somewhat besides the point,which is that organisms are purposefully
> ordered,and that is evidence enough of intelligent design.
Some day I hope to be as sure of some one thing as you are of everything.
deadrat
Perhaps you should watch the recent Nova program on dogs. Go here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3103_dogs.html
In particular, you might want to review the part about the breeding
program that a Russian geneticist, Dmitri Belyaev, undertook for
Siberian fox farmers to get tamer foxes. Within ten generations,
Belyaev not only got tamer foxes, he essentially got dogs, with changes
not only to the the animals' behavior, but also to their ears, tails,
and coats, as well as their adrenaline levels. His animals started to
bark, which apparently wild foxes don't do.
Ernest Major
<29c3f0a0-f198-48fb...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 <anthon...@ameritech.net> writes
scientists.
When you've educated yourself sufficiently, you could proceed to learn
about homeotic mutations.
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery
Like fish in a barrel.
Frank J
Do you accept it, and if not did you ever challenge him or any
*evolution-denier* who does?
Since you know of his IC, you must know that he is a biochemist. As
such he sees the tremendous similarities and nested hierarchies across
all cell types, so to him a "biological continuum" is a much more
reasonable conclusion than independent origins from nonliving matter.
The latter simply has no evidence no matter how many "designer
interventions" there may have been. If there were "designer
interventions" in lieu of the "RM + NS" caricature that evolution
deniers are so fond of, Behe is quite careful to avoid even
hypothesizing where and when they may have occurred. Although to his
credit he has suggested on several occasions that they are above the
species/genus levels. IOW he not only thinks that humans and other
apes share common ancestors, but in that case, if not with our common
ancestors with bacteria and broccoli, that 'RM + NS" may be sufficient
for that degree of change.
> I don't use his argument about
> irreducible complexity because I think the complexity of organisms is
> somewhat besides the point,which is that organisms are purposefully
> ordered,and that is evidence enough of intelligent design.
All the more reason that you should challenge other kinds of evolution
deniers. Elsewhere I asked if you agreed with Behe that life on Earth
has existed for 3-4 billion years. Do you? If so, you may want to
challenge the YECs and Old-Earth-Young-Lifers who don't. Conversely if
you think that life have a very different age you might want to
challenge those evolution deniers who think that mainstream science is
correct about that.
My offer to you is that you could be the first evolution-denier *ever*
to show some scientific integrrity by mainly challenging other
evolution-deniers, while they pathetically run for cover in a big tent
of pseudoscience, ultimately demonstrating that they have even less
confidence in *their* "theory" than in evolution.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:
Actually, wild foxes *do* bark occasionally, they just don't
do it mindlessly when you walk past their house.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Stephen
I suppose teosinte-to-maiz probably counts as mutation resulting in
structural change?
S
--
deadrat
I had understood the comment to mean not that the wild foxes were mute
while their descendants of ten generations barked mindlessly when you
walked past the house, but that the wild foxes vocalizations were much
different from the sound of (mindless) barking.
My understanding may be faulty here.
John Harshman
Not at all. It counts as a whole series of mutations followed by selection.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Though it's unclear what you think "structural" means, I'm suspecting
> that antennipedia might fit the bill. Does it?
I pictured Wikipedia for insects. Sort of a smarter cousin of
Conservapedia.
--Jeff
--
"We can have democracy in this country,
or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
--Louis D. Brandeis
jillery
A minor nit, meaning I see it has no consequence to the discussion,
but I'm desperate for a way to break in, that would be artificial
selection.
Bob Casanova
Well, discounting the fact that dogs aren't descended from
foxes...
Foxes bark (at least, that's how it's referred to), but not
like dogs; the calls range from a "yipping" sound to
something that sounds like a cat whose tail is caught in a
door:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6NuhlibHsM&feature=related
So you understood correctly.
>My understanding may be faulty here.
John Harshman
about it.
chris thompson
Absolutely. The only difference is that artificial selection is
generally much more severe than natural selection- i.e., organisms
without the desired traits do not have reduced reproductive success,
but zero reproductive success. They get neutered, or eaten, or just
killed and composted.
Chris
David Hare-Scott
It seems to me that those who do not want evolution to be real must first
erect a distinction so that artificial selection must somehow be quite
different to natural selection otherwise the manifest effectiveness of the
former in altering gene pools and phenotypes would flow on the the latter -
and they cannot have that. This process of denial is that there is no
characterisation or explanation of this supposed distinction, it just comes
down to "I don't believe they are the same process" sprinkled with some
doctine of kinds.
David
Jack Dominey
> Foxes bark (at least, that's how it's referred to), but not like dogs;
> the calls range from a "yipping" sound to something that sounds like a
> cat whose tail is caught in a door:
I awoke a couple of years ago to a sound in the back yard that was like a
bark crossed with a scream; took me a couple of weeks to find out it was
a fox. Not something you normally think of here in the suburbs.
jillery
Absolutely, even when I don't think about it. Just as microevolution
is a form of macroevolution.
jillery
That is a typical result of the interface between urban and rural.
Having lived in that space, my impression is such experiences vanish
over a span of just a few years.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
>>
> The radical kinds of evolution that are claimed to be possible on
> account of changes in allele frequency have not been seen to happen.
To see them happen you'd need to observe your system for a million
years or so (preferably much more). Humans don't live long enough to do
that.
Mountains haven't been see to grow, either -- only "microgrowth",
anyway. Do you doubt that mountains are formed by accumulation of small
changes? If not, how do you account for deposits of sea-shells far
above sea level?
> It would take far more than changes in allele frequencies,more
> unbounded possibilities of speciation and mutations than what has been
> observed,for radical kinds of evolution to have happened. Changes in
> allele frequency only amount to numerical changes in dominant and
> recessive traits that already exist in a population. Is that even
> worth calling evolution? You can't get any fundamental change in a
> species through that process.
--
athel
John Harshman
But microevolution isn't a form of macroevolution. It may be that
macroevolution is just summed microevolution (though I think there's
more to it).
Steven L.
news:4ef42a1c-a7e7-4a7b...@j32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> My offer to you is that you could be the first evolution-denier *ever*
> to show some scientific integrrity by mainly challenging other
> evolution-deniers,
You keep using this argument over and over,
Even though I've already shown you that it's wrong.
The OECs do a lot to challenge the YECs--including detailed reviews
deconstructing YEC books.
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview.htm
I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge this.
Is the problem that OEC is less visible in the U.S., and seems to have
no proponents on this NG?
-- Steven L.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:> Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> > This looks rather trollish to me but just in case it isn't .....
>
> > > It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> > > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> > > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> > > have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> > > conception,
>
>
> Conception is the key to origination. And natural selection is
> supposed to explain how species originate.
>
> > > by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>
>
> A process of elimination hardly amounts to a process of origination or
> evolution. Changes of allele frequencies within a population do not
> result in anything more than changes in the frequencies of physical
> the claims of theory of evolution from that kind of so-called
> evolution.
even amongst humans (which aren't very genetically diverse) there are
some quite substantial allele differences. Some people have no wisdom
teeth. Some appear to be immune to AIDS. Some people can see an extra
colour. The few people who reach 100 apparently don't die of cancer
(this may just be statistical flukery). If such traits became common
in an isolated sub-population it would look very much like evolution
and even speciation to me.
Nick Keighley
> The theory of evolution cannot be true because it uses non sequiturs
> for causal connections,attributes powers to natural causes they do
> have have,ignores the facts of reproduction and instead focuses upon
> obscure processes,and because it proceeds from methodological
> naturalism,which is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with.
can you expand on these?
I'm also curious as to what your alternative explanation is and how
you explain away the substantial body of evidence for evolution.
Was there a single creation event (when?). Or did each species
spontaneously spring into existence? Why? Or was there a creator? Who
is he and why is he trying to fool us into believing in evolution?
Why do I share so much DNA with a chimps? Why is the vitemin C pseudo
gene (broken gene) nearly identical in humans and chimps?
Are rats and mice completly separate ab initio species or are they
related in some fashion? Perhaps by a common ancestor?
Why do all mamallian skeletons have almost exactly the same set of
bones?
How do you explain the fossil record?
Then look up ERVs.
> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> morph according to outside circumstances. Living species are composed
> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
that makes no sense. Evolutionary biology does none of what you
suggest above.
> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> change and variation in the act of reproduction.
yes, but no such limits in the poulation as a whole.
> Speciation has not
> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> that science claims to have happened.
so where *do* new species come from? The hand of gord?
> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> environmental pressures to affect it.
yes but if something gets killed of before it reproduces then its DNA
has been nicely removed from the gene pool.
> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> experiment.
so why is there so much similarity between rats and mice? A little
less for rats and rabbits. And much less (but still some) between rats
and oak trees.
I believe we share nearly half our DNA ith slime moulds (though I
understand the comparison gets harder as species diverge).
Again, what is your alternative?
Nick Keighley
why? There are still foxes around where I live. And they make some
horrid noises.
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4ef42a1c-a7e7-4a7b...@j32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > My offer to you is that you could be the first evolution-denier *ever*
> > to show some scientific integrrity by mainly challenging other
> > evolution-deniers,
>
> You keep using this argument over and over,
> Even though I've already shown you that it's wrong.
>
> The OECs do a lot to challenge the YECs--including detailed reviews
> deconstructing YEC books.
>
> http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview.htm
>
> I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge this.
I often do acknowledge that YECs and OECs challenge each other and
IDers, so I need to clarify what I was trying to say above.
What I meant by "mainly" is that no major evolution-denier to my
knowledge has ever devoted *most*, or even *half* of their efforts to
challenging other evolution-deniers. To be fair to Anthony, I can't
rule out that some minor players have devoted most or all of their
efforts to challenging other evolution-deniers. If anything they
should find fellow evolution-deniers more receptive to their
"evidence" and "reasoning" because they don't have the prior
commitment to (methodological) naturalism.
>
> Is the problem that OEC is less visible in the U.S., and seems to have
> no proponents on this NG?
Most OECs or would-be OECs seemed to have converted to ID. I often
wonder how many former YECs also found OEC more reasonable, but went
to ID instead because it avoids calling attention to the weaknesses of
YEC.
As for this NG, Ray is an OEC, though possibly a young lifer; he
refuses to answer my questions about previous biospheres. I recall
Pagano several years ago claiming to be an OEC, but I can't find the
reference, and he refuses to answer any of my "when" questions.
>
> -- Steven L.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jack Dominey
<jack_d...@email.com>:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:37:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Foxes bark (at least, that's how it's referred to), but not like dogs;
>> the calls range from a "yipping" sound to something that sounds like a
>> cat whose tail is caught in a door:
>
>I awoke a couple of years ago to a sound in the back yard that was like a
>bark crossed with a scream;
Sounds right; did you check out the link to the videos I
posted?
> took me a couple of weeks to find out it was
>a fox. Not something you normally think of here in the suburbs.
Well, with both deer and (IIRC) coyotes in NYC's Central
Park nothing would surprise me very much. We had quite a few
foxes in the suburbs around Annapolis MD when we lived
there.
cassandra
wrote:
Of course they do. That is what foxes do, among other things. Enjoy
it while it lasts.
Anthony022071
> > The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
> > like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
> > morph according to outside circumstances.
> No it doesn't. Do you know anything whatsoever about evolutionary biology?
Yes,the same information and claims you and other evolutionists
present as evidence for evolution.
> > Living species are composed
> > of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
> > existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
> > that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
> Population genetics deals with individuals in populations. What's the
> problem?
The problem is the facts of reproduction and speciation,which make it
impossible for macro-evolution to happen.
> > Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
> > change and variation in the act of reproduction.
> What limits? How do you know?
I've told you before. Speciation does not go beyond the creation of
sub-species,hybrid lines that are unsustainable,and polyploids,as in
these examples.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
How do you manage to extrapolate macro-evolution from this kind of
evidence? You can't get from fish to mammal by way of those means,no
matter how many speciations of fish occur.
> > Speciation has not
> > been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
> > unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
> > how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
> > that science claims to have happened.
> If so, it isn't speciation.
So speciation isn't real unless it justifies the theory of evolution?
> But how do you know any of this?
I'm taking into consideration some facts about reproduction and
speciation that scientists pass over,or which they misconstrue as
supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. What is known and
observable about reproduction and speciation ought to prevent us from
making the speculative leap to macro-evolution.
> > It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> > have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> > conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> You really don't understand natural selection. It can act at any time of
> life, from conception until the end of reproductive life, or, through
> kin selection, after. Anything that affects expected lifetime
> reproductive success is subject to selection.
It's what happens at the moment of conception that matters,since it is
only through acts of conception that speciation and descent happens.
Species are essentially what they are at and because of conception.
Changes in reproductive success or allele frequencies do not cause a
species to develop beyond what it already is.
> > There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
> > environmental pressures to affect it.
> That would be a strong argument if selection were somehow limited to the
> moment of conception, but I can't imagine why you think so, unless you
> somehow accuse selection of causing mutations, and suppose that
> mutations happen chiefly during conception. (Neither of these is true.)
I don't say that selection is limited to the moment of conception,but
that it has little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
conception,and thus it does not cause a species to change into
something beyond what it is.
> > Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
> > structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
> > reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
> > it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
> > experiment.
> Then you claim that in order to know something happened, you have to see
> it happening. Do you follow this rule in everyday life, or only when
> trying to deny evolution?
In the case of common descent between species,it is necessary to know
if there was ever a reproductive connection in the first place. It is
not necessary for there to be common ancestry in order for there to be
genetic commonalities,just like it is not necessary for all lightning
to have struck in the same place or to have come from the same clouds.
And since acts of reproduction in time past are specific and hidden
events,it should not be assumed,based upon genetic commonalities,that
there was common ancestry between species that have never been known
to be compatible in reality. It's like assuming that two iron chains
coming up separately from the ground must be linked together somewhere
deep beneath the surface of the earth. How would you know unless you
dug beneath the surface or pulled up the chains?
>> which is a specific event,it is necessary to
> Nope, science works by forming theories to explain data, not by seeing
> things happen. Common descent explains the data quite nicely, but you
> haven't been able to come up with any viable alternative. Until you do,
> common descent will remain the theory of choice.
Common descent has to do with what happened in the reproductive
histories of different species,which cannot be traced out by analyzing
genetic data.
What is the necessity for a scientific alternative for common
descent,when there is no necessity for all species to have evolved
from one genetic source?
Anthony022071
> In message
> <b79a10d0-ee22-415b-9264-ab9764b72...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> writes
>
> >It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
> >factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
> >produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
> >have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> >conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
> >environmental pressures to affect it.
>
> selection.
>
Whether species are supposed to have evolved by abrupt transformations
or by gradual accumulation of small changes,natural selection cannot
cause anything more than variations within a general species.
>
> But do you really think that anyone is stupid enough to fall for this as
> an argument against common descent with modification though the agency
> of natural selection and other processes?
>
I'd like to think that people are perceptive enough to see that
scientists are reading connections into the histories of species that
cannot be known or justified.
John Harshman
> On Jan 19, 12:18 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
>>> like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
>>> morph according to outside circumstances.
>> No it doesn't. Do you know anything whatsoever about evolutionary biology?
>>
> Yes,the same information and claims you and other evolutionists
> present as evidence for evolution.
That's vague enough. I'll take that as a "no" answer, then.
>>> Living species are composed
>>> of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
>>> existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
>>> that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>> Population genetics deals with individuals in populations. What's the
>> problem?
>>
> The problem is the facts of reproduction and speciation,which make it
> impossible for macro-evolution to happen.
See, I would have thought that speciation is exactly what makes it
*possible* for macroevolution to happen. You will have to explain this.
>>> Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
>>> change and variation in the act of reproduction.
>> What limits? How do you know?
>
> I've told you before. Speciation does not go beyond the creation of
> sub-species,hybrid lines that are unsustainable,and polyploids,as in
> these examples.
That isn't true. First, if you think speciation doesn't go beyond
subspecies, you are misusing the word. Speciation is a term that refers
to the formation of multiple species where there was previously only
one. If all that gets formed are subspecies, that isn't speciation. So
what you should be saying is that speciation doesn't happen. However, we
have plenty of evidence that it does. Now if you disallow polyploid
speciation, which by the way seems like special pleading, then
speciation generally takes longer than anyone doing a scientific study
has time for. So we generally have to infer speciation in the past based
on current patterns. This is of course exactly what we have to do with
everything else we don't observe directly, but I don't see you
complaining about those dang atomists with all their nonsense about
tiny, invisible particles.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> How do you manage to extrapolate macro-evolution from this kind of
> evidence? You can't from fish to mammal by way of those means,no
> matter how many speciations of fish occur.
Why not? If X is a little bit different from Y, and if nothing prevents
indefinite repetition of similar small differences, why shouldn't that
add up to big differences? And I again direct you to the overwhelming
evidence -- not from extrapolation of observed speciation, by the way --
that macroevolution has indeed occurred. At the simplest level, how do
you explain the fact that life in the Cambrian was very different from
life today? And of course, how do you explain the nested hierarchy of
characteristics in groups of species, such as Primates? It seems to me
that macroevolution is the only viable explanation.
>>> Speciation has not
>>> been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
>>> unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
>>> how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
>>> that science claims to have happened.
>> If so, it isn't speciation.
>
> So speciation isn't real unless it justifies the theory of evolution?
No, speciation isn't speciation unless it produces new species. That's
the definition of speciation. If it only produces new subspecies, that
isn't speciation. It might be on the way to speciation, though.
>> But how do you know any of this?
>
> I'm taking into consideration some facts about reproduction and
> speciation that scientists pass over,or which they misconstrue as
> supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. What is known and
> observable about reproduction and speciation ought to prevent us from
> making the speculative leap to macro-evolution.
Can you be more specific? What would prevent macroevolution from
happening, given enough time?
>>> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>>> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>>> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>>> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>>> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>> You really don't understand natural selection. It can act at any time of
>> life, from conception until the end of reproductive life, or, through
>> kin selection, after. Anything that affects expected lifetime
>> reproductive success is subject to selection.
>>
> It's what happens at the moment of conception that matters,since it is
> only through acts of conception that speciation and descent happens.
That's crazy talk. What, for example, about things that happen before
conception? What if you're eaten by a cave bear before you have any
children? Could that possibly affect the genetic makeup of the next
generation?
> Species are essentially what they are at and because of conception.
> Changes in reproductive success or allele frequencies do not cause a
> species to develop beyond what it already is.
This is so confused as to be uninterpretable. Again, I suggest you learn
just a little bit about biology before you make up your mind with such
certainty. Conception is part of reproduction, but hardly the only part.
And things that happen at any time can affect reproduction. Most
mutations, by the way, happen during gametogenesis. Are you contending
that mutations are irrelevant to evolution because they don't happen
during conception?
>>> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
>>> environmental pressures to affect it.
>> That would be a strong argument if selection were somehow limited to the
>> moment of conception, but I can't imagine why you think so, unless you
>> somehow accuse selection of causing mutations, and suppose that
>> mutations happen chiefly during conception. (Neither of these is true.)
>>
> I don't say that selection is limited to the moment of conception,but
> that it has little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,and thus it does not cause a species to change into
> something beyond what it is.
Of course it does. Consider a simple case, black and white moths.
Suppose that for some reason the initial population is evenly divided
among the two phenotypes (which, for simplicity, perfectly reflect two
simple genotypes). Now add a predator, which finds white moths easier to
detect, and so to catch and eat, than black moths. Let's further suppose
that moths are exposed to predation during the interval between eclosion
and mating/egglaying. Do you think that the black morph will increase in
frequency between generations, despite the fact that color has no effect
at the moment of conception?
Of course you might respond "a change in color is not beyond what it
is". But I have no idea what "beyond what it is" means biologically,
nor, I assure you, do you.
>>> Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
>>> structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
>>> reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
>>> it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
>>> experiment.
>> Then you claim that in order to know something happened, you have to see
>> it happening. Do you follow this rule in everyday life, or only when
>> trying to deny evolution?
>>
> In the case of common descent between species,it is necessary to know
> if there was ever a reproductive connection in the first place. It is
> not necessary for there to be common ancestry in order for there to be
> genetic commonalities,
If that's true, please explain another way for that to happen.
> just like it is not necessary for all lightning
> to have struck in the same place or to have come from the same clouds.
That's a meaningless analogy. I have a better one. Suppose you have a
monestary full of medieval monks, hand-copying manuscripts. They've been
doing it for hundreds of years, each one making a copy of some other
copy. Because they are illiterate, they can't read the manuscripts and
don't know when a previous monk has made an error: they just copy the
error faithfully. And of course every so often a monk makes a new error.
Do you think you could assemble a family tree of manuscripts,
determining which copies were related by being copied from the same copy?
No need to ask. It turns out you can. See, for example, Howe, C. J., A.
C. Barbrook, M. Spencer, P. Robinson, B. Bordalejo, and L. R. Mooney.
2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17:147-152.
Of course the reason that article appeared in a genetics journal is that
manuscript descent is a good analogy to biological descent. We can tell
the same things, for the same reasons.
> And since acts of reproduction in time past are specific and hidden
> events,it should not be assumed,based upon genetic commonalities,that
> there was common ancestry between species that have never been known
> to be compatible in reality. It's like assuming that two iron chains
> coming up separately from the ground must be linked together somewhere
> deep beneath the surface of the earth. How would you know unless you
> dug beneath the surface or pulled up the chains?
You are a veritable fount of bad analogies. I like mine better. The
medieval manuscript analogy is quite exact. Even if we had never seen a
manuscript copied from older manuscripts, we'd be able to figure it out.
And I see you have dodged the question. Then you claim that in order to
know something happened, you have to see it happening. Do you follow
this rule in everyday life, or only when trying to deny evolution?
>>> which is a specific event,it is necessary to
>
>> Nope, science works by forming theories to explain data, not by seeing
>> things happen. Common descent explains the data quite nicely, but you
>> haven't been able to come up with any viable alternative. Until you do,
>> common descent will remain the theory of choice.
>
> Common descent has to do with what happened in the reproductive
> histories of different species,which cannot be traced out by analyzing
> genetic data.
But they can. That's the point of the genetic data. Again, what you need
to do, which you keep ignoring, is come up with something other than
common descent that could possibly explain the data we have. Pointless
analogies won't do it. Simple denial won't do it. You need an
alternative mechanism for producing nested hierarchies.
Mark Isaak
> On Jan 19, 12:18 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> > The theory treats living species as if they were non-living formations
>> > like "evolutionary rock" or amorphous genetic pools that just kinda
>> > morph according to outside circumstances.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Do you know anything whatsoever about evolutionary
>> biology?
>>
> Yes,the same information and claims you and other evolutionists present as
> evidence for evolution.
>
>> > Living species are composed
>> > of individual members that are conceived or reproduced into
>> > existence,so it is improper to speak of living species in such a way
>> > that glosses over the facts of reproduction.
>>
>> Population genetics deals with individuals in populations. What's the
>> problem?
>>
> The problem is the facts of reproduction and speciation,which make it
> impossible for macro-evolution to happen.
>
>> > Speciation has to do with reproduction,and there are limits to genetic
>> > change and variation in the act of reproduction.
>>
>> What limits? How do you know?
>
> I've told you before. Speciation does not go beyond the creation of
> sub-species,hybrid lines that are unsustainable,and polyploids,as in these
> examples.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> How do you manage to extrapolate macro-evolution from this kind of
> evidence? You can't from fish to mammal by way of those means,no matter
> how many speciations of fish occur.
>>
>> > Speciation has not
>> > been lead to anything more than sub-species,hybrid lines that prove
>> > unsustainable,and polyploids. No matter how many generations pass or
>> > how many speciations occur,it cannot lead to the kinds of evolution
>> > that science claims to have happened.
>>
>> If so, it isn't speciation.
>
> So speciation isn't real unless it justifies the theory of evolution?
>
>> But how do you know any of this?
>
> I'm taking into consideration some facts about reproduction and speciation
> that scientists pass over,or which they misconstrue as supporting evidence
> for the theory of evolution. What is known and observable about
> reproduction and speciation ought to prevent us from making the
> speculative leap to macro-evolution.
>
>> > It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>> > factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>> > produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>> > have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>> > conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>>
>> You really don't understand natural selection. It can act at any time of
>> life, from conception until the end of reproductive life, or, through
>> kin selection, after. Anything that affects expected lifetime
>> reproductive success is subject to selection.
>>
> It's what happens at the moment of conception that matters,since it is
> only through acts of conception that speciation and descent happens.
> Species are essentially what they are at and because of conception.
> Changes in reproductive success or allele frequencies do not cause a
> species to develop beyond what it already is.
>
>> > There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
>> > environmental pressures to affect it.
>>
>> That would be a strong argument if selection were somehow limited to the
>> moment of conception, but I can't imagine why you think so, unless you
>> somehow accuse selection of causing mutations, and suppose that
>> mutations happen chiefly during conception. (Neither of these is true.)
>>
> I don't say that selection is limited to the moment of conception,but that
> it has little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
> conception,and thus it does not cause a species to change into something
> beyond what it is.
>
>> > Common descent cannot be determined by cross-analysis of bone
>> > structures or even genetic material,because descent has to do with
>> > reproductive history,which cannot be traced by cross-analysis,because
>> > it is a vertical series of past events that cannot be reproduced by
>> > experiment.
>>
>> Then you claim that in order to know something happened, you have to see
>> it happening. Do you follow this rule in everyday life, or only when
>> trying to deny evolution?
>>
> In the case of common descent between species,it is necessary to know if
> there was ever a reproductive connection in the first place. It is not
> necessary for there to be common ancestry in order for there to be genetic
> commonalities,just like it is not necessary for all lightning to have
> struck in the same place or to have come from the same clouds. And since
> acts of reproduction in time past are specific and hidden events,it should
> not be assumed,based upon genetic commonalities,that there was common
> ancestry between species that have never been known to be compatible in
> reality. It's like assuming that two iron chains coming up separately from
> the ground must be linked together somewhere deep beneath the surface of
> the earth. How would you know unless you dug beneath the surface or pulled
> up the chains?
>
>>> which is a specific event,it is necessary to
>
>> Nope, science works by forming theories to explain data, not by seeing
>> things happen. Common descent explains the data quite nicely, but you
>> haven't been able to come up with any viable alternative. Until you do,
>> common descent will remain the theory of choice.
>
> Common descent has to do with what happened in the reproductive
> histories of different species,which cannot be traced out by analyzing
> genetic data.
I see you are still striving mightily to avoid learning anything true,
and I applaud your success. May I ask, though, *why* you would work so
hard at such an endeavor?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
John Harshman
> On Jan 19, 3:01 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <b79a10d0-ee22-415b-9264-ab9764b72...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> writes
>>
>>> It does not make sense to say that natural selection (environmental
>>> factors and adaptational needs) working upon genetic mutations has
>>> produced the existing variety of species,because environmental factors
>>> have little or no bearing upon what happens at the moment of
>>> conception,by which individual creatures,and thus species,originate.
>>> There is no room or space of time at the moment of conception for
>>> environmental pressures to affect it.
>> Very good. You've produced an argument against saltationism by natural
>> selection.
>>
> Whether species are supposed to have evolved by abrupt transformations
> or by gradual accumulation of small changes,natural selection cannot
> cause anything more than variations within a general species.
What is a "general species"? And why can variations accumulate indefinitely?
>> But do you really think that anyone is stupid enough to fall for this as
>> an argument against common descent with modification though the agency
>> of natural selection and other processes?
>>
> I'd like to think that people are perceptive enough to see that
> scientists are reading connections into the histories of species that
> cannot be known or justified.
Have you ever considered the possibility that people who know something
about the subject are right while you, who know nothing about it, are
wrong? I'm not saying the experts are always right, but it does seem
like the safe way to bet. A little less confidence would seem warranted,
at the very least.
Bob T.
I dunno. Coyotes are on the increase here in suburban California - I
saw one near my girlfriend's house in Marin County the other day.
- Bob T
Garamond Lethe
> On Jan 19, 12:18 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Population genetics deals with individuals in populations. What's the
>> problem?
>>
> The problem is the facts of reproduction and speciation,which make it
> impossible for macro-evolution to happen.
>
No. The real problem is you are a duck.
I'm not that familiar with ducks. I understand there are degrees to be
had studying ducks, that these courses of study can involve everything
from anatomy to zoology, genetics, ecology, farming and history, but I
need know nothing about any of this to tell you with certainty girded by
ignorance: you are a duck.
Please don't bring up evidence. Ducks can't type. You're typing, so
your evidence is obviously wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that
a) I can't imagine a world where you are not a duck,
b) My world is bounded by my imagination,
c) You're in my world, thus
d) It follows, as a duckling follows whatever it happens to imprint
upon, that you are a duck.
I'm glad we had this little chat.
<snip>
Susan S
Our city councilwoman periodically warns us that coyotes are prowling
around part of the city and to be mindful of the whereabouts of our pets
and children. Long Beach, CA: not exactly the Wild West.
Susan Silberstein
Kleuskes & Moos
Westerners (and i include myself in that) tend to draw a neat line.
Civilisation is where we are, and Nature is what's left over, and
never the twain shall meet. We assume nature will just roll over and
play dead, when we ask it to.
I guess this just goes to show that line isn't so sharp. Mother Nature
adapts. Over here steenmarters (Beech Marten, Martes Foina) are
beginning to become a problem. They don't eat your kids nor any of the
bigger pets (rabbits have been known to dissapear), but they have a
strange taste for cables, wrecking the electrics of many a car and the
wiring of a few houses.