Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Aitch]

No, it means a trip to Miami and...

Spring break?
<take off sun glasse>
Means murder, Mr Wolf.
<replace dark glasses>

 

[randman]

Admit what? What are you saying? That a population of organisms can diverge from its ancestors so far that they can no longer interbreed? Yes. That the descendants of that population might diverge even further? Yes.

In fact given enough time you might find as many different species as we see on this planet all descended from a common ancestor.

What mechanism exists to stop such diversification?

The mechanism of microevolution itself. It's a process of subgroup isolation, which is a process of decreasing genetic variability.

 

[Dancing David]

The mechanism of microevolution itself. It's a process of subgroup isolation, which is a process of decreasing genetic variability.

No -Pixy Misa

 

[A'isha]

SPRING BREAK!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Sorry, I'm British. Did I do that correctly?

Were you holding a beer and waving it over your head as you did it? In a bottle, mind you...pint glasses aren't suitable!

If so, then yes. Yes you did!

 

[Simon39759]

The mechanism of microevolution itself. It's a process of subgroup isolation, which is a process of decreasing genetic variability.

It's not:
a) In general, evolution is a consequence of isolation rather than a cause of it. Isolation -> Genetic drift -> The two populations are too different too co-reproduce. If the populations are free to intermingle, there is no reason for such a genetic drift and it makes specification unlikely.
b) Microevolution does not cause reproductive isolation, by definition, because such isolation is a criterion for speciation and speciation defines macroevolution.
c) This isolation actually protect less prevalent alleles and variant that might be otherwise drowned in the more prevalent ones. As such, this evolution is actually increasing genetic diversity.

Or are you confusing microevolution and natural selection again?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Were you holding a beer and waving it over your head as you did it? In a bottle, mind you...pint glasses aren't suitable!

If so, then yes. Yes you did!

No, but I was on a quest to see as many boobs in as short a space of time as humanly possible, if that counts.

 

[A'isha]

No, but I was on a quest to see as many boobs in as short a space of time as humanly possible, if that counts.

If my own spring break experiences back in college are anything to go by, that definitely counts.

 

[Dinwar]

a) In general, evolution is a consequence of isolation rather than a cause of it. Isolation -> Genetic drift -> The two populations are too different too co-reproduce. If the populations are free to intermingle, there is no reason for such a genetic drift and it makes specification unlikely.

I'd say that isolation increases the rate of evolution, due to small effective population size. Even in very large populations (say, humans) new traits can arise and spread quickly if they offer sufficient advantages (nothing is ever at HWE). It's just easier to go from 1% to 99% in a population of 100 than in a population of 6,500,000,000.

b) Microevolution does not cause reproductive isolation, by definition, because such isolation is a criterion for speciation and speciation defines macroevolution.

Only for you people obsessed with squishy things! On a serious note, this is why I dislike these terms: even within science they have multiple definitions. For example, what you're describing as macroevolution is termed "microevolution" in paleontology. It gets confusing.

Please note that I mean this as a friendly conversational gambit, not as criticism. I'm bored, Fable 2 is annoying me, and this conversation is interesting (well, the parts between people who actually know a thing or two about evolution, anyway).

ETA: My spring breaks were spent looking at geology in various states in the Eastern United States. Of course, the one time we DID end up on a beach in Pensicola Florida....About a week too early, sadly. Never camp in Ohio in March, that's all I'm sayin'.

 

[Simon39759]

I'd say that isolation increases the rate of evolution, due to small effective population size. Even in very large populations (say, humans) new traits can arise and spread quickly if they offer sufficient advantages (nothing is ever at HWE). It's just easier to go from 1% to 99% in a population of 100 than in a population of 6,500,000,000.

Yep.
That was the idea behind my point c.
Randman says that microevolution and isolation decrease genetic variability while, in general, it is the opposite that is true...

Only for you people obsessed with squishy things! On a serious note, this is why I dislike these terms: even within science they have multiple definitions. For example, what you're describing as macroevolution is termed "microevolution" in paleontology. It gets confusing.

Please note that I mean this as a friendly conversational gambit, not as criticism. I'm bored, Fable 2 is annoying me, and this conversation is interesting (well, the parts between people who actually know a thing or two about evolution, anyway).

ETA: My spring breaks were spent looking at geology in various states in the Eastern United States. Of course, the one time we DID end up on a beach in Pensicola Florida....About a week too early, sadly. Never camp in Ohio in March, that's all I'm sayin'.

My main focus is molecular biology, so super-squishy indeed.
I need to get back to amateur paleontology, especially now that I both have a car and live in a fossiliferous region... I already spotted a local club, but it was close when I checked it out... Next month, hopefully...

 

[randman]

Yep.
That was the idea behind my point c.
Randman says that microevolution and isolation decrease genetic variability while, in general, it is the opposite that is true...





My main focus is molecular biology, so super-squishy indeed.
I need to get back to amateur paleontology, especially now that I both have a car and live in a fossiliferous region... I already spotted a local club, but it was close when I checked it out... Next month, hopefully...

No, reducing populations DOES decrease genetic variability and his comment on increasing "evolution" is a red herring. Yea, we can increase evolution, for example, by inbreeding dogs to create new forms.

But is that a macroevolutionary process?

No, it is not, and simply pretending it is doesn't work. This is why Pierre Grasse accused NeoDarwinists (you know them as evolutionists) of deceit and called their idea of allelic change (microevolution) adding up to macroevolution, "the myth of evolution".

 

[randman]

My main focus is molecular biology,

So Simon, how do you explain the cheetah's relative low genetic variability? Shouldn't the cheetah be thriving now as populations are smaller? After all, you claimed smaller populations increase genetic variability.

 

[sadhatter]

Got a chuckle out of the every species is by definition an intermediate stage. See what I mean when you guys focus so much on the theory and verbal proofs of it, that it clouds your ability to look at processes and data by themselves and get a handle on things?

On the other bolded parts, no, there is no evidence it was purely random, and no it does not conflict with front loading. Front loading does not predict all of one species would mutate the same way, etc,.....You really need to take the time to actually understand what men like Pierre Grasse and later, various front loaders, are saying before you assume something disagrees with them.

Why not just take the time to get a handle on what they are saying?

Why does every Id'er seem to be asking simultaneously, for a pokemon like evolution system ( in which each stage is clearly defined, and exact. ) so they can " see " the changes, but also for a endlessly detailed almost, animation kind of evolution, in which we can see every possible step.

Fail to meet these conflicting criteria and automatically creationism wins out.

 

[sadhatter]

So Simon, how do you explain the cheetah's relative low genetic variability? Shouldn't the cheetah be thriving now as populations are smaller? After all, you claimed smaller populations increase genetic variability.

Define " thriving".

Kind of an ill defined word to be using in such a specific context.

 

[randman]

It's not:
a) In general, evolution is a consequence of isolation rather than a cause of it. Isolation -> Genetic drift -> The two populations are too different too co-reproduce. If the populations are free to intermingle, there is no reason for such a genetic drift and it makes specification unlikely.
b) Microevolution does not cause reproductive isolation, by definition, because such isolation is a criterion for speciation and speciation defines macroevolution.
c) This isolation actually protect less prevalent alleles and variant that might be otherwise drowned in the more prevalent ones. As such, this evolution is actually increasing genetic diversity.

Or are you confusing microevolution and natural selection again?

Some of your comments:

In general, evolution is a consequence of isolation rather than a cause of it.

Ok, so can you explain to your fellow evos that isolation is indeed part of the process of orginating new species, then new species after that and so on. They don't seem to get that basic point that evo theory advocated sequential speciation in origin of the higher taxa.

If the populations are free to intermingle, there is no reason for such a genetic drift and it makes specification unlikely.

I tried to tell them that, and they said I was lying. Note: I was just saying what evos believe, not that I agree with them.

Microevolution does not cause reproductive isolation, by definition,

Thank you. Will the other evos here finally admit this?

This isolation actually protect less prevalent alleles and variant that might be otherwise drowned in the more prevalent ones. As such, this evolution is actually increasing genetic diversity.

Finally someone that has at least a very basic idea of what evolutionist theory is today.

Yes in part and no, in another. If there is mutation, that is said to increase genetic variability, but only if the mutation is not a decrease in genetic sequences. BUT the process of subgrouping involves a decrease in genetic variation to begin the process. That's a major reason we consider smaller isolated groups of animals, for example, are in danger of extinction of they cannot mate with other populations.

Let's say I sell something new for $5 that I paid $500 for. It doesn't take a genius to see I am losing money on the sale even though technically, that one small part, the $5, did add some money to me. The process as a whole though is a losing proposition.

Evos have never substantiated the claim that mutations can add genetic variability faster than are lost due to subgroup isolation.

If you disagree, show me one study comparing the 2.

 

[randman]

Why does every Id'er seem to be asking simultaneously, for a pokemon like evolution system ( in which each stage is clearly defined, and exact. ) so they can " see " the changes, but also for a endlessly detailed almost, animation kind of evolution, in which we can see every possible step.

Fail to meet these conflicting criteria and automatically creationism wins out.

Maybe because asking you guys to deal in specifics and not vague assertions is something you yourselves should be doing in the first place.

And sequential speciation as the process originating higher taxa is not really that vague. yea, you can look at species differently, but no matter how you define species, the envisioned process is the same.

 

[tsig]

Why does every Id'er seem to be asking simultaneously, for a pokemon like evolution system ( in which each stage is clearly defined, and exact. ) so they can " see " the changes, but also for a endlessly detailed almost, animation kind of evolution, in which we can see every possible step.

Fail to meet these conflicting criteria and automatically creationism wins out.

They also want dogs to give birth to cats.

 

[sadhatter]

Maybe because asking you guys to deal in specifics and not vague assertions is something you yourselves should be doing in the first place.

And sequential speciation as the process originating higher taxa is not really that vague. yea, you can look at species differently, but no matter how you define species, the envisioned process is the same.

if your going to use my post as a springboard to just say what you wanted to say anyway, at least try and make it entertaining.

Replying to my post, versus just quoting it so you don't have a random " Ya know whut i wuz thinkin' " post out there , would be preferable, but if you have to do it, at least make the read worth my time.

 

[Dinwar]

Got a chuckle out of the every species is by definition an intermediate stage. See what I mean when you guys focus so much on the theory and verbal proofs of it, that it clouds your ability to look at processes and data by themselves and get a handle on things?

As opposed to YOUR view, which is based on a refusal to read widely accepted scientific sources and insists that anyone who hasn't heard of your pet lunatic is an undereducated moron? Including those who actually STUDY the subject?

You really need to take the time to actually understand what men like Pierre Grasse and later, various front loaders, are saying before you assume something disagrees with them.

Why not just take the time to get a handle on what they are saying?

When you bother to read what legitimate scientists say, and actually UNDERSTAND what they say (something you demonstrably have been unable to do thus far in all three threads) I'll look into your pet lunatic. Until then, I'll pass.

Maybe because asking you guys to deal in specifics and not vague assertions is something you yourselves should be doing in the first place.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You refuse to read posts after any disagreement with you. ANTpogo spent an absurd amount of time gather data to demonstrate that you're wrong and you refused to even acknowledge it. You don't get to demand evidence and then ignore it.

Why does every Id'er seem to be asking simultaneously, for a pokemon like evolution system ( in which each stage is clearly defined, and exact. ) so they can " see " the changes, but also for a endlessly detailed almost, animation kind of evolution, in which we can see every possible step.

Fail to meet these conflicting criteria and automatically creationism wins out.

This is merely them attempting to dictate the terms of the conversation. They want to define the terms (randman has redefined pretty much every piece of jargon he's used), dictate what constitutes evidence (clear transition fossils aren't enough, clear molecular evidence isn't enough, etc), and dictate who is and isn't an expert (anyone who agrees is an expert, anyone who doesn't isn't, no matter what they happen to say).

 

[sadhatter]

They also want dogs to give birth to cats.

Asking for contradictory , or downright impossible things seems to be their m.o.

I mean they could at least try and put some effort into making their logical fallacies entertaining. Screw cats giving birth to dogs, or the crocoduck, if your just going to talk some bullocks , this is what i want to see.....

" Obviously it would be an evolutionary advantage to man to have a constant source of income. As society has moved to be income based. So answer me this Darwin slave, why is it that evolution has not progressed to allow man to **** diamonds? Thereby increasing the survival of every person by giving them a steady source of income? Obviously this would lead to greater survival , but i don't see anyone ******* diamonds , do you?"

( Best read in a Rik Mayal Alan b'stard filibuster voice.)

 

[A'isha]

I see randman is already rehashing his talking points and conveniently ignoring things he's already been shown. Especially regarding the rate of the accumulation of useful genes vs. gene loss.

Someone tell me that my mention of Dr. Rodin's (and earlier studies) wasn't a total waste of my time. Please?