Evolution: the Facts.

[randman]

and your attempt to force us to accept the biological species concept is nothing more than a continued attempt to control the discussion to favor your conclusion

More idiocy from you guys. How you define species or any words means absolutely nothing. The process is the same whether you have words to describe it or not. Your inability to see that and that Darwinism posits sequential speciation (speciation defined as I put it) is somewhat shocking.

 

[randman]

Nope, you need to do some reading again, what evolutionary biologist is the last thirty years said that?

Ok, we have nothing to talk about. You deny Darwinism predicts evolution of higher taxa. You do not understand evolution at all.

The higher taxa cannot mate across that taxa. Darwinism says it evolved from a common source through groups of creatures splitting off and evolving. You apparently do not believe and do not then grasp even the most basic concept of evolutionary theory, which all Darwinists still believe today.

Not one evolutionary biologist that is a Darwinian evo agrees with you. Every single one believes the higher taxa evolved through sequential speciation. That has never changed.

 

[SumDood]

Ok, we have nothing to talk about. You deny Darwinism predicts evolution of higher taxa. You do not understand evolution at all.

The higher taxa cannot mate across that taxa. Darwinism says it evolved from a common source through groups of creatures splitting off and evolving. You apparently do not believe and do not then grasp even the most basic concept of evolutionary theory, which all Darwinists still believe today.

Not one evolutionary biologist that is a Darwinian evo agrees with you. Every single one believes the higher taxa evolved through sequential speciation. That has never changed.

Sorry if i missed it (this is a rapid thread), but what is the difference between an evolutionary biologist and a Darwinian evo? Is there a difference between an evolutionist and an evo?

 

[Dinwar]

More idiocy from you guys. How you define species or any words means absolutely nothing. The process is the same whether you have words to describe it or not. Your inability to see that and that Darwinism posits sequential speciation (speciation defined as I put it) is somewhat shocking.

I don't refuse to deny that evolution predicts that subpopulations will differentiate from parent populations. What I'm getting at is that you have no clue the complexity of the issues you're attempting to address, and have not done sufficient research to discuss such topics as speciation (for example, you insist on discussing allopatric speciation almost exclusively), yet have the audacity to claim that we're the ignorant ones because we haven't looked at your favorate fringie. If you'd read the books I referenced you'd understand my complaints. You refuse, yet insist on calling me ignorant.

The higher taxa cannot mate across that taxa.

Not true. We've found genes crossing between hosts and parasites before, and entire classes of viruses that transfer genes. Plus, this only works with animals--once you throw 99% OF LIFE into the equation your strawman argument for what evolution says falls apart rather quickly. Evolution is WEIRD, far more weird than you're willing to admit.

Also, again, please appologize for the libel you've committed during this thread, specifically for accusing scientists of fraud in the absence of evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, no posting of phylogenies which have groupings of species different to what you'd expect with the Theory Of Evolution, then? And I could have sworn that randman wanted to prove his assertions with scientific evidence, and that he'd said he wanted honest debate. Silly me.

Case closed.

Which case do you think is closed and why?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And the funny thing is that you just know that when randman gets bored of this board and moves on to pastures anew that he'll cite his conversations with people here in the same way that he's cited previous discussions on other boards, rather than outlining how he was repeatedly shown to be ignorant and deceitful.

 

[Wowbagger]

Ok, why did you say and think that?

The subject seemed so important for you, and I was clarifying an aspect of it... which was subsequently corrected by someone else, incidentally.

What is it about darwinism that suggests that?

Nothing in Darwinism suggests that. Though, nothing in Darwinism would refute that, either.

YOU brought the subject up. Why do YOU think complexity increasing or decreasing or whatever is a problem for Darwinism?

Seems like from your discussion you are beginning to say there is no general trend.

I was corrected on that point, yes.

Also, we're talking GENETIC complexity not just morphological complexity.

My statements had applied to either one.

 

[Dancing David]

So what?

I was responding to what you said, and you still haven't aknowledged. That there is more to evolution than speciation.


I have made the point multiple ways and I ask again:

Iteration 3: Does the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in popularions make them a separate species?

Means absolutely nothing. Show me a breeding population that evolves into higher taxa and is still a breeding population. You cannot, and evo theory does not even predict or suggest that.

Case closed.

Asserive hamdwaving, very nice.

theer are many reasons that speciation occurs and you still haven't made your point, whatver it is you can't state clearly.

Evolution is more than speciation.

We're not going to get very far into the discussion until you recognize sequential speciation and isolation is the Darwinian process of evolving the higher taxa, and if you do not recognize that, there isn't much to talk about since you don't grasp even the simplest and most basic process envisioned by Darwinism to evolve the higher taxa.

Now what have you said in response to contingent history, how does that impact speciation? And why do you think that isolation always has to happen.

And what is this point you have such a hard time making, there are many reasons speciation occurs, isolation is not the sole factor.

So lets test your knowledge, is the red wolf and the coyote an example of seperate species or divergent lines in a population?
How about the polar bear, is it a seperate species or a divergent line in a population?

 

[Dancing David]

The fact you think the 2nd point is germane to a discussion on the evolution of the higher taxa suggests we have nothing more to talk about.

I am sorry but if you cannot understand sequential speciation is what Darwinism says is the process for the evolution of the higher taxa, there is nothing more to say. You just understand evo theory.

And the fact that you can't answer a germane question about evoltion is telling as well, so what is the answer?

because it demonstrates that evoltion is more than speciation, so what is the answer?

then try to make you point that you can't state. I know exactly why I post what I post, so let us see you lay out your argument. Isolation is not the sole factor in speciation.

So are the coyote and the red wolf seperate species or divergent lines?

What about the white admiral and red admiral butterfly?

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, we have nothing to talk about. You deny Darwinism predicts evolution of higher taxa. You do not understand evolution at all.

No it is not what the theory of evoltion says at all, it says that members of a breeding population that have more offspring will contribute to a larger percentage of the consequent gene pool.

And teh fact that you just pretend what you think evolutionary theory says is telling.

Who said that 'higher' taxa had to evolve. they can eveolve, they did evolve.

Darwinism predicts that memebers of a species that reproduce effectively will contibute more to the subsequent gene pool.

So who said what you said, or are you unable to document your assertion?

The higher taxa cannot mate across that taxa. Darwinism says it evolved from a common source through groups of creatures splitting off and evolving. You apparently do not believe and do not then grasp even the most basic concept of evolutionary theory, which all Darwinists still believe today.

So where are these Darwinists and what did they say?

Now you are misrepresenting my words, which makes you a very poor debater.

I said that contingent history was involved in the seperation of gene lines. But that isolation was not the sole cuase, so now you appear to be a scoundrel for misrespresenting my words.

Not one evolutionary biologist that is a Darwinian evo agrees with you.

then find where they said it and lets examine what they said.

Every single one believes the higher taxa evolved through sequential speciation. That has never changed.

And i stated that isolationw as not tehs ole determinant, my your memory is short.

 

[randman]

Sorry if i missed it (this is a rapid thread), but what is the difference between an evolutionary biologist and a Darwinian evo? Is there a difference between an evolutionist and an evo?

Yes. Evo refers to those advocating Neodarwinism, mainstream evo theory, not just a scientists working in evolutionary biology. You can dissent from ND and still be an evolutionary biologist.

 

[randman]

I was responding to what you said, and you still haven't aknowledged. That there is more to evolution than speciation.

Sure, but monophyletic gradualism including punctuated equilibrium did not produce all biota without sequential speciation.

I have made the point multiple ways and I ask again:

Iteration 3: Does the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in popularions make them a separate species?

No, but how does that have anything to do with what we're discussing.

theer are many reasons that speciation occurs and you still haven't made your point, whatver it is you can't state clearly.

Evolution is more than speciation.

So you finally admit speciation occurs?

Amazing.

Now, do you admit evos think it occurs according to their theory, NeoDarwinism?

And what is this point you have such a hard time making, there are many reasons speciation occurs, isolation is not the sole factor.

Never said it was the only factor.

Who said that 'higher' taxa had to evolve. they can eveolve, they did evolve.

So you are claiming re-evolving is not a form of evolution?

Interesting. I don't think evo scientists would agree with you on that.

But it's interesting that we don't see this re-evolution of the higher taxa.

 

[randman]

Nothing in Darwinism suggests that. Though, nothing in Darwinism would refute that, either

What good is a scientific theory that does not make predictable results that can be tested?

 

[Dancing David]

There is no continuum under Darwinism.

Did you make this statement Randman?
Yes or no?

I asked you about the sickle cell anemia because it pertains to the question of a continuum and divergent lines in a breeding population.

So we have a continuum in many ways other than sickle cell anemia, but in this case we can have breeding populations that vary on amounts of members that have the following three states:
1. No sickle cell anemia
2. Half a trait of sickle cell anemia
3. Full trait of sickle cell anemia

Now before I proceed to discuss how a continuum proceeds to divergent populations that can no longer breed, a point in the continuum, do you agree that these are three states that can exist within breeding members of the same species?

I do know where I am going and I do know what I am trying to say.

I am trying to discuss things with you, so if you stop all your rhetoric and proceed with discussion that would help a lot.

So can you agree that there is the potential for these three kinds of individuals in the human breeding population?

 

[randman]

I don't refuse to deny that evolution predicts that subpopulations will differentiate from parent populations. What I'm getting at is that you have no clue the complexity of the issues you're attempting to address, and have not done sufficient research to discuss such topics as speciation (for example, you insist on discussing allopatric speciation almost exclusively), yet have the audacity to claim that we're the ignorant ones because we haven't looked at your favorate fringie. If you'd read the books I referenced you'd understand my complaints. You refuse, yet insist on calling me ignorant.

Not true. We've found genes crossing between hosts and parasites before, and entire classes of viruses that transfer genes. Plus, this only works with animals--once you throw 99% OF LIFE into the equation your strawman argument for what evolution says falls apart rather quickly. Evolution is WEIRD, far more weird than you're willing to admit.

Also, again, please appologize for the libel you've committed during this thread, specifically for accusing scientists of fraud in the absence of evidence.

More bs from you. Never said anything about discussing geographic isolation exclusively; nor any of the stuff you claim.

Get back to me when you want address my points.

 

[randman]

Did you make this statement Randman?
Yes or no?

I asked you about the sickle cell anemia because it pertains to the question of a continuum and divergent lines in a breeding population.

So we have a continuum in many ways other than sickle cell anemia, but in this case we can have breeding populations that vary on amounts of members that have the following three states:
1. No sickle cell anemia
2. Half a trait of sickle cell anemia
3. Full trait of sickle cell anemia

Now before I proceed to discuss how a continuum proceeds to divergent populations that can no longer breed, a point in the continuum, do you agree that these are three states that can exist within breeding members of the same species?

I do know where I am going and I do know what I am trying to say.

I am trying to discuss things with you, so if you stop all your rhetoric and proceed with discussion that would help a lot.

So can you agree that there is the potential for these three kinds of individuals in the human breeding population?

Similarly I addressed someone's comment on continuum and of course had evos blast me saying there is no continuum which is what I said.'

Now you appear to be resurrecting the idea. Guess it's Ok for you to say it but must be wrong if I say you said it.

Just a mass of confusion on the part of evos here.

My point is so simple and basic and exactly what evo theory says it not ought to be controversial. Sequential speciation is what evo theory says happened.

 

[Kotatsu]

I keep repeating the point because you fail to get it. My point is that evolutionists said that pseudogenes were particularly strong evidence, and now they cannot use that as evidence. It sounds like you don't know why evolutionary biologists made these claims and don't want to learn either.

Functional DNA as evidence is a separate matter.

Got it now?

I can understand perfectly well why biologists would have made those claims. I just don't agree that showing that sections of an organism's DNA previously thought to be "junk DNA" is actually functional does anything to dismantle this line of argument. If we find genuine "junk DNA" tomorrow, evolutionary theory predicts that this will show the same pattern as functional DNA, i.e., that taxa closely related in the true tree will be more likely to have sequences more similar to each other than would taxa that are more distantly related on the true tree.

The argument that "junk DNA", if found, will show this property is still, theoretically, a very strong argument in favour of evolution, as we would expect "junk DNA" to behave the same way as functional DNA, albeit perhaps at a different speed. The fact that what was previously thought to be "junk DNA" turned out to be functional mean precisely one thing: that the specific examples given of "junk DNA" conforming to the theory of evolution are not examples of "junk DNA" doing so. They do remain examples of functional DNA showing the exact same thing. The strength of the evidence does not lie in the label we attach to the data, but to the actual data. Arguing otherwise betrays only your intimate lack of knowledge of the field.

Your point would have some merit if you could show that the very same people who argued that "junk DNA" is strong evidence in favour of evolution also argued that all other forms of DNA, whether structural, coding or whatever, are not strong evidence in favour of evolution, and that this is actually the case. This is the only case in which your argument has merit, as this is the only case in which data would be moved from the "evidence basket" to the "not evidence basket". As long as the very same data shows the same pattern regardless of what we call the data, it remains as strong a piece of evidence for or against evolutionary theory as it was before. If, as I have seen you write elsewhere, you truly want to look at the data and see what the data tells you, then you should agree that the labeling of the data is irrelevant to what the data actually says.

It may well be finding that so-caleld junk DNA is functional is not the death-knoll for darwinism, but that doesn't change the fact Darwinist insisted IDers, creationists and others were wrong on this issue when in fact they were right and Darwinists wrong.

Can you show that creationists and other non-biologists argued that similarity in a given alignment of supposed "junk DNA" sequences from different species did not indicate common descent, and that when this piece of supposed "junk DNA" was shown to be functional, it turned out that the data actually didn't indicate common descent in the group? In other words, can you show for instance a phylogeny which was based on supposed "junk DNA" sequences which, when discovering that the specific sequences used were not in fact "junk DNA", altered so that no common descent was indicated?

ID and related scenarios have often been more predictive of results than Darwinism, hence better models.

So this will be challenge number two, then: show me a list of these predictions ID has made with regards to a single group of animals which have been shown to be correct, and I will endeavour to do the same using scientific scenarios, and we will see which is most numerous. Pick whichever group of organisms you want, list the predictions ID has made regarding the relationships and whatever else you want for this group (as well as the basis for this prediction), show the methods used to test these predictions, and what the results are (i.e. to what extent their predictions have been supported by the data and their analyses of the data), and, after you have told me what group you will be looking at, I will do the same using evolutionary predictions and evolutionary data.

This is, of course, in addition to the first challenge, which was that if I randomly select a sample of phylogenies, you will be able to to show that it contains groupings of species that would not be predicted by the theory of evolution? I have developed a quick method for removing most of the bias with regards to what phylogenies will be selected, and could proceed with this whenever you give the signal. The proposed method of phylogeny selection:

1. Load random pages on Wikipedia.

2. Every time a page is on an animal taxon (1), I will go to Google Scholar and make a search for "[taxon name] + phylogeny".

3. Using a ten-sided die (possibly an electronic one) I will select which phylogeny is to be studied. If the die shows a four, and article number four is not available to me, I will take the next one, and continue going down the page until I reach a paper I have access to.

4. To remove some bias, I will not select the following taxa, as I am more intimately familiar with those due to my own research: Phthirapteran lice, Clitellate worms, and Charadriiform shorebirds. If requested, I will also remove the following taxa that I have not worked with, but with which I am nonetheless quite familiar: Passeriform birds, Anuran amphibians, Vespid wasps, Psocopterans, and all polychaetes. If any such taxon is generated in the Wikipedia search, I will just discard this result and do a new one.

5. I also propose to remove all studies which are on a below-species level, as these, typically being concerned with shorter time periods and smaller geographical areas, would tend to bias the study in my favour. If the die suggests a paper of this nature, I will proceed as under point 3 above.

6. I will write down all search results in Wikipedia, including all discarded searches, as well as all initial and modified search results in Google Scholar. If necessary, I will provide you (and anyone else who wants them) with all the selected phylogenies (in case you don't have access to them yourself).

7. I will then give you as much time as you require to read through the papers and detail in which of them groupings of species occur that would not be predicted by the theory of evolution. After you have presented your case, I will look through it and get back to you as soon as possible.

Please comment on this method, as I may have overlooked flaws that would bias the process in my favour. I will start this test as soon as you give the signal (although I will be away during most of the weekend, and will not therefore not have time until Monday).

Not what I said. Phyla that have emerged in the past 500 million years give or take 50 say, and then look at the time periods for the last example of a taxa to emerge. A picture is formed. Evolution, if it happened, appears to be dead now.

You will need to detail this picture more comprehensively, as I can see no such picture forming when I look at the data. Assuming I am the one with bias, I would ask you for more detail, and also to clarify what your claim actually is. As "phylum" is a label given to groups of animals which have a very long common history, and have been separated from all other groups of animals for a long time, this by necessity means that this label will be given only to groups of animals that formed a long time ago. More recent groups have other labels attached to them.

This does in no way imply that "phylum", "family" or any other taxonomic label is anything that exists in nature; these are all within-science terms used for communication, and has no external existence. However, certainly there are groupings referred to as, e.g., families that are more recent than other groupings having the same rank label. As taxon labels are only terminology, they are not comparable between higher taxa. A bird family is not necessarily as inclusive or as old as a wasp family, as the very term is just a label we use for a certain grouping we feel is significantly closely related to warrant it. How inclusive a taxon in differs widely between higher taxa, mainly because it is comparatively rare for people to work on multiple taxa, and because different taxa offer different levels of resolution, and have different number of differently skilled people working on them.

So you think if we find some new phyla, it might have evolved, say, 10 million years ago? or 100 million years ago?

We will (and have) certainly found groups of organisms which have evolved more recently than the "Cambrian explosion". Whether you call these "phyla" or "classes" or even "orders" is just a matter of taste, as the recent restructuring of the Platyhelminths and several other large groups should show adequately.

However, I will concede that it is unlikely that a group that diverged from a known phylum within the last 10 million years or so would be referred to as a phylum. This, however, is just because of the way taxonomy and systematics works, and has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

Then maybe you guys should quit using them as examples of evolution in action which is my point and was Pierre Grasse's.

If they show evolution in action, they are certainly good examples of it, and should be used as such. However, it is imperative to understand the limits of using such examples.

Again, evolution does not necessitate change measurable to humans over any given period of time. It also does not oblige any given taxon to evolve into something else (2), and certainly not if the niche a given organisms occupies at a given point in time is more or less stable for extended periods of time, and the organism is already highly adapted to that niche.

That more and more speciation adds up to new, higher taxa.

The origin of higher taxa does ["advance through speciation"] according to the theory you are supposed to be familiar with commonly referred to "evolution" and I call Darwinism or Neodarwinism.

This is not true. One instance of early speciation followed by a long period to time during which both sister taxa survive and evolve is sufficient for the development of differences significant enough for us to place the two sister taxa in different higher taxa, without the need for any speciation past the initial event. Granted, a widely distributed pair of sister taxa in a natural environment is likely to yield speciation within their respective lineages, but nothing in the development of higher taxa presupposed or requires speciation past the initial event. There are several phyla which contain only a handful of known species.

Interesting isn't it that a basic scientific definition among evos is so difficult. Maybe there is a reason for that?

Of course there is a reason for that. There are, in fact, plenty, the most obvious one being that different groups of organisms reproduce in different ways, and therefore cannot be expected to divisible into smaller units in the same fashion. The animal kingdom alone exhibits more variations of reproduction than most people can comprehend. However, de Queiroz and some others are very close to establishing a combined species concept which may work on any given higher taxon, so this may not be so much of a problem in the future.

There is no continuum under Darwinism. There is separation and reproductive isolation of populations. If you have been taught otherwise and actually believe there is a continuum, that's kind of sad really. Everyone knows, say, a cat cannot mate with a dog. Even a child knows that. There is no continuum as if all living, sexually reproducing creatures can still mate with one another. That's absolute lunacy.

How fitting, then, that you are the first person to mention this fact. This is nothing that has ever been argued by a biologist in possession of a basic evolutionary knowledge.

However, evolutionary theory does contain a continuum, but it is temporal rather than spatial. We predict that a given extant individual of a given species would theoretically be able to breed with its direct antecedents. These, in turn, would be able to breed with theirs, that is, the first species grandparents. Let this continue backwards in time, and you will find a temporal continuum. However, evolutionary theory predicts that we will eventually reach a point at which the extant individual could no longer breed successfully with an ancestor of a given generation, provided they were given the opportunity. This ancestor could then be given the status of a different taxon, and could be the starting point of a new continuum going either backwards to the next point in time where interbreeding between taxon 2 and its direct (but not immediate) ancestor is at least theoretically impossible, or forward where another of taxon 2's descendant lines are followed.

Of course, sexual or geographic isolation is not the "only tool" but is a requirement for the origin of higher taxa. Unfortunately, if something this basic isn't clear, it's likely useless to try to explain other more complicated concepts.

This is a simplification, as mere chance can also be the basis of speciation, as is the case in sympatric speciation. I don't see how this is in any way a critique of evolutionary theory, however, as this is something that is well known.

Already answered it.

No, you have not. What you have said is:

On the phylogeny, I am talking about the overall pattern so we're talking all of them. It's not a point original I have thought of. If you look at the pattern and assume common descent, it suggests a couple of things; first a process that has largely ended; second, evolution seeming to occur via a pulse and burst of groupings of creatures that remain largely in stasis or go extinct but evolve around a range; the common ancestor that began each of these bursts is conspiciously absent; a repetition of forms such as with placentals and marsupials suggesting the pattern was in some sense preformed in DNA; etc,....

It doesn't look like an unguided process. We haven't seen a new phyla, for example, in what 500 million years or something like that? How long for the other taxa? Say a new kingdom in what? even longer, right? New family? New genus? New species?

Hopefully you get the picture? Why have bacteria with such a remarkable adaptive and mutation rate not evolved something else in the past billion years? They are one of the most stable forms around. Micrevolution happens all the time there but never adds up to macroevolution.

This was followed by what I refer to above as the "first challenge", which you sidestepped because you feel a greater urge to appear clever than to actually appear intellectually honest. I refer to this post:

If you get that basic point, it might be worth delving into the rest of your post but you cannot seem to get past arguments about evo's use of data and whether they were right and more fundamental arguments about evolution.

At no point have you actually suggested a phylogeny we could inspect together. Above, you will see that I am inviting you to do so more formally. If you truly believe what you are arguing, I see no reason for you not to accept the test I outline above (or any variation you believe is more fair).

You don't get to dictate what is and is not a species. This is a MAJOR debate in biology, one which as far as I can see has no good answer, and your attempt to force us to accept the biological species concept is nothing more than a continued attempt to control the discussion to favor your conclusiono.

I do not see these attempts as a problem, as evolutionary theory is robust enough to handle cases where the biological species concept can be said to work (or approximated to work). As long as we know the mode of reproduction of a given taxa randman may chose to discuss, who cares if we are discussing it on "his terms"? Example taxa where the BSC is valid (or approximately valid) can be discussed on these terms, and taxa where it is not valid are simply not eligible for discussion under the assumption that the BSC is valid.

Means absolutely nothing. Show me a breeding population that evolves into higher taxa and is still a breeding population. You cannot, and evo theory does not even predict or suggest that.

This would entail having to assume that lack of known fossil subtaxa within a given higher taxon is evidence of actual lack of these taxa. I am not prepared to make this assumption, but if you want to make a case for this, I would be willing to discuss it.

More idiocy from you guys. How you define species or any words means absolutely nothing.

I find it amusing that you can argue this, and still argue that there is a huge qualitative difference between calling a certain section of DNA "junk DNA" or functional DNA, not to mention your parade of ignorance when it comes to taxonomy.

The higher taxa cannot mate across that taxa. Darwinism says it evolved from a common source through groups of creatures splitting off and evolving. You apparently do not believe and do not then grasp even the most basic concept of evolutionary theory, which all Darwinists still believe today.

Not one evolutionary biologist that is a Darwinian evo agrees with you. Every single one believes the higher taxa evolved through sequential speciation. That has never changed.

However, past the initial split of an ancestral taxon into two, no further speciation is actually required by the theory of evolution for it to hold true. It is certainly a very likely consequence, and we would certainly predict that it would happen in most natural populations, but it is not at all a requirement.

Sorry if i missed it (this is a rapid thread), but what is the difference between an evolutionary biologist and a Darwinian evo? Is there a difference between an evolutionist and an evo?

One is what biologists call themselves, the other is what non-biologists call biologists. I take "evo" to be short hand for "evolutionist", which is a synonym for "biologist".

---
(1) This is for practical purposes. I am more familiar with what journals on animal taxa my university has access to, and it will therefore be easier to obtain these phylogenies. If you object to this, I can easily include non-animal taxa as well.

(2) Which, in any case, is a taxonomic impossibility.

 

[Dancing David]

Similarly I addressed someone's comment on continuum and of course had evos blast me saying there is no continuum which is what I said.'

And that is relevant to the point I was making how?

The point of original was divergent lines. I think one issue is that you do not pay attention to the specifics of what people discuss with you and make blanket statements that really aren't related to the concepts being discussed.

I did not say that there was a continuum between species in the already existing taxa.

But if you want to just post random general responses to what people say then you will have consequences.

Now are you going to respond to what I said or just make more hand waving and rhetorical statements.

If we have members of a breeding population with a trait like sickle cell anemia, do you agree that there will exist the variation in traits amongst members of the breeding population?

Now you appear to be resurrecting the idea. Guess it's Ok for you to say it but must be wrong if I say you said it.

So you really do not want to discuss ideas, but you just wave around concepts that you don't understand. try agreeing or disagreeing with the statements that I made.

I did not say that there was a continuum between the existing species, I am talking about divergent lines within a population.

Just a mass of confusion on the part of evos here.

Maybe if you actually read people responses rather than just making arguments you don't understand and using terms you don't understand, you confusion would be less.

My point is so simple and basic and exactly what evo theory says it not ought to be controversial. Sequential speciation is what evo theory says happened.

And this is y9our problem, I am talking about the subject I originally started discussing with you, and you keep hammering all concepts with a single tool.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So this will be challenge number two, then: show me a list of these predictions ID has made with regards to a single group of animals which have been shown to be correct, and I will endeavour to do the same using scientific scenarios, and we will see which is most numerous. Pick whichever group of organisms you want, list the predictions ID has made regarding the relationships and whatever else you want for this group (as well as the basis for this prediction), show the methods used to test these predictions, and what the results are (i.e. to what extent their predictions have been supported by the data and their analyses of the data), and, after you have told me what group you will be looking at, I will do the same using evolutionary predictions and evolutionary data.

I would be very interested in seeing any such evidence. Lets see an alternative to evolution with explanatory power - i.e. an explanation that makes testable predictions.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you make this statement Randman?
Yes or no?

I asked you about the sickle cell anemia because it pertains to the question of a continuum and divergent lines in a breeding population.

So we have a continuum in many ways other than sickle cell anemia, but in this case we can have breeding populations that vary on amounts of members that have the following three states:
1. No sickle cell anemia
2. Half a trait of sickle cell anemia
3. Full trait of sickle cell anemia

Now before I proceed to discuss how a continuum proceeds to divergent populations that can no longer breed, a point in the continuum, do you agree that these are three states that can exist within breeding members of the same species?

I do know where I am going and I do know what I am trying to say.

I am trying to discuss things with you, so if you stop all your rhetoric and proceed with discussion that would help a lot.

So can you agree that there is the potential for these three kinds of individuals in the human breeding population?

So I will try to spiel it out for you but I will try to go at a pace that maybe will stop your rhetorical posturing and hand waving behavior.

I was trying to establish a simple principle:
-accumulation of traits within divergent lines in a breeding population.

So in this example I was talking about sickle cell anemia and how you can have the expression of the trait in this case as
-no trait
-half trait
-full trait

Do you agree that this is possible in this discussion of this trait of sickle cell anemia?
Yes or no, If no please state your reasons.

Now some traits are going to be more complex so say we have a trait that is manifested in a two gene sites as two alleles, so we would have 1,1/1,2/2,1/2,2 so in this simple example we have four possible states for the expression of our model trait.

Do you agree that this is possible in this model trait?
Yes or no, If no please state your reasons.



Now for the next step we look at eight possible traits, but for the sake of the model we will give them just an on/off designation, rather than a more realistic model.

So we have eight traits that are either present or not so there are 2⁸ possible configurations of the ten traits or 256 the set being
00000000, 10000000, 01000000, 11000000... 01111111, 11111111.
So in this model the possible number of states in the ten traits is 256.

So do you agree that this is possible in as there being 256 potential configurations of these ten traits?
Yes or no, If no please state your reasons.


So sticking with this last model of ten traits that have a binary expression it is easy to see how we can look at these ten traits as being a sequence that has 256 configurations going from no expression of these ten traits to expression of all ten traits.

Now can we arrange these 256 possible configurations as gradations between two members of our model breeding population?

The math one would be to just sort the 256 states 1-256 with 00000000=0, 10000000=1, 01000000=2, 11000000=3...01111111=255 and 11111111=256.

So in this case we can just assign a set order to the possible expression of the ten traits, and if we have any two members of our model breeding population we can just grade them through where they fall in this ordered set.

Do you agree that is a possible way to order the possible combination and grade the differences between two members of our model breeding population?
Yes or no, If no please state your reasons.


Now that is a very arbitrary and mathematical way to sort between two members our model breeding population, the way that humans more usually sort things would be to just take the ten traits and compare them so you would usually sort them as being similar or dis-similar.

So if the share no traits their similarity is 0, if they share all traits then the score of similarity would be ten.

So if we compare two members of our model breeding population we can give them a similarity score based upon ten traits as a range from 1-10.

Do you agree that we can compare and grade the traits between two members of our model breeding population in this fashion?
Yes or no, If no please state your reasons.


So again I am setting this up to be a discussion of divergence in breeding sets within a breeding population.

Please answer, then I can hopefully engage in a discussion with your of the next part, how do you get from the continuum of traits to two sets within the breeding pool that can no longer breed with each other.