+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 71 of 89 FirstFirst ... 6167686970717273747581 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 882

Thread: Fallacies of Evolution

  1. #701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
    Any such barrier or limit would have to be located in the gametes so it could be passed from generation to generation. It would have to be a gene or group of genes. Of course, these genes would somehow (i) have to keep a historical record of how much change had occurred in the past for the current organisms' historic genetic lineage, (ii) keep that historical record for mutations throughout the entire genome (e.g., what occurred to genes on other chromosomes), (iii) be able to determine when the limit or barrier was reached and (iii) when the limit or barrier was reached would have to be able to stop further mutations from occurring at all (e.g., stop cosmic rays, insure no duplication errors, etc.). Of course, evidence that this process was actually occurring would include a total lack of mutations from one generation to the next. Such evidence has not been observed. Indeed, all observed evidence demonstrates that mutations always occur from one generation to the next.
    The 'barrier' is clearly there, & observable. Breeding is an example of using this barrier to produce certain traits in the child stock. When no new traits are added or introduced via breeding, the choices for selection are diminished. Fewer & fewer traits are available to future generations, as they are locked in to a narrow pattern. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with either breeding or natural selection, which are the same processes.
    (i) we DO have a 'historical record', in the mtDNA of some families. Canidae, which has been used extensively in this thread, is an example of this record, & the sequence of events in the micro evolution of the variety we see today. Perhaps some specific canid traits have been lost to extinction, as in other genetic 'families', but there were still enough to produce the wide variety of canids we see today.
    (ii)Speculation that mutation 'creates' genetic variability, such as within canidae, is flawed. There were too many traits in too short a time, for mutation & time to have 'created' them. The study i posted earlier stated this clearly. AND, there is NO RECORD of any traits being 'created' by mutation.. that is merely asserted. The slight variations from adaptation from e.coli & other bacteria are unique to bacteria, & their distinct genetic makeup.. a circular strand of dna, & even then, all you have are e.coli. They are not becoming anything else, even after millions of generations. They are clearly LOCKED into a genetic pattern. They can vary WITHIN the parameters of their DNA, but they do not add genes, add chromosome pairs, or become different organisms.
    (iii)Mutations do not do as you believe. They are not the mechanism for 'creating' new genes. They merely alter old ones, & not for the better, for the most part. It is only in certain organisms, such as e.coli that have a broader adaptability in their environment. Others, such as saber toothed cats, or wooly mammoths, lacked this adaptability, & went extinct. In fact, the entire record of extinction is the story of DEvolution, not evolution. As traits became narrowed in the family tree, those that could not adapt to changing environmental pressures died off. If they lacked the adaptability to use existing traits necessary to survive, they died. They did not conjure up new traits, or mutate themselves at will.

    Time & mutation is an imaginary process for 'creating' traits. This cannot be observed or repeated, yet it is hailed as the source of life & the origin of species.

    Quote Originally Posted by contrails View Post
    Changes to the basic architecture of an organism require numerous changes in the DNA and will not occur in a single generation. What the ToE claims is that the small changes which we can observe will produce larger changes over many successive generations. You're expecting scientists to observe in just a few years what it took nature thousands or millions of years to accomplish. Unless you can produce a mechanism that limits the amount of genetic change that a species can accumulate over time, then ToE stands as the best explanation for the diversity of species.
    And, you cannot see or repeat any of these alleged changes. You cannot see or repeat a single new trait occurring in an organism. Where did the variability within canids come from? HOW did those traits suddenly appear, in such a short time? WHY would all that variability happen, all at once, then sit there waiting to come out?

    The 'accumulated small changes add up to big ones' is the central flaw of evolution. It is assumed, not observed, & the science of genetics is making that assumption seem crazier every day.

    It is the very first point of the OP, & this flaw has not been addressed, but ignored & reasserted. That is not a scientific argument, but a political one, where bluff & propaganda is used to promote a mythical belief.
    False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by One Mind View Post
    Fair enough, but usfan wants evolutionary biology to do as hard science did, by using a theory to split the atom. When they do, in biology he will agree with it the way he agrees with micro evolution, horizontal evolution.

    It appears he is asking too much. Hell, just admit we do not know enough when it comes to evolutionary genetics, to replicate what happened naturally, and do as materialists always have to do, as Sheldrake said, and write a promissory note. With no due date.

    I have no vested interests in this argument, for it does not matter to me what the truth is . But I would like to see the same kind of evidence that comes from hard science in regards to this macro evolution issue. And that simply does not exist. It is a theory filled with ideas that are not replicable. For a serious mind, this is a slight red flag. Why should we not expect from biology, what we expect from a hard science? That is what usfan is talking about. Fact is, his kind of evidence does not exist, and the proponents of ToE misdirect from it in every way one can imagine. So be honest and just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing admit the obvious. YOu can still believe in it, but you should at least understand, reasonably why he has issues with it. Even some biologists question what you believe in. You just do not listen to what they have to say. For it would be heresy. LOL
    You bring up many interesting points. I have noticed that for many hard core evolutionists, their devotion & loyalty to it is as an ideology, not a scientific concept. They are fully invested, philosophically, into the ToE as the basis for their naturalistic beliefs about origins & the universe, & to question that makes their whole worldview tremble. But i don't see it that way. I see the BELIEF in naturalistic origins as a belief, just as someone with supernaturalistic beliefs. And, just because they don't have the exact mechanism clearly defined, does not mean that there is NO NATURAL explanation, it just means we don't know, as yet. But this is unsatisfying to the dogmatist, who wants everything clearly & neatly defined, & framed in absolutes.

    But i cannot see the ToE lasting for much longer. It has been the defacto naturalistic view for over 100 yrs, usurping spontaneous generation, which lasted for centuries, as the naturalistic 'theory' of origins. The hard science of genetics is a big nail in the coffin, for the ToE.. it is coasting on 19th century arguments & charts, that do not reflect the current knowledge about genetics, & it completely depends on logical fallacies for it support. There is NO SCIENCE to back the ToE, as the 'origin of species'.

    It DOES matter to me, 'what the truth is'. As a theist, i do not care WHAT the mechanism 'was' or 'is' for HOW living things came about. Scientists for centuries have sought to understand 'what God hath wrought', & have peered deeply into the inner workings of God's creation, searching for a glimpse into the divine Cause. If it was evolution, fine.. i would accept that as the mechanism, just as i accept newton's theory of gravity, the attractions of mass, relativity, & quantum physics. But i see the holes & numerous serious flaws in the ToE, & cannot accept it as a valid explanation for origins. I don't know HOW it happened, either, & i am a seeker for this mystery. Maybe, some real mechanism will be discovered, that demonstrates the ability to change genetic structure, or create new genes, or add chromosomes.. but that seems unlikely, unless there is an event based change, or we go to the '2001 space odyssey' theory, with special beamed rays affecting the changes in short time periods. There are a lot of different imaginations about origins.. one or more might even have truth, or partial truth to them. But as science, we have methodology to adhere to. We cannot blend imagination with facts, & declare them the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by One Mind View Post
    They depend upon magic time. Time exerts a powerful force on genetics. It can do things, which our intellect does not have a clue as to how it does it. So, it is magical, powerful magic. To replicate what time does, which has no intent, requires a magician. The are scientists and not magicians. They are missing the magic.

    They depend upon magic time. Time exerts a powerful force on genetics. It can do things, which our intellect does not have a clue as to how it does it. So, it is magical, powerful magic. To replicate what time does, which has no intent, requires a magician. The are scientists and not magicians. They are missing the magic.
    Yes, this was point #4 in the OP:
    4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
    It is merely wishful thinking, masked in statistical probability. But to calculate probability, you have to have some parameters to go by. Something that is observably impossible cannot be calculated, as a probability. It would not matter how many times you jumped up & down, to reach the moon. Unless you can show this as a physical, objective possibility, declaring, 'if you do it over enough time, anything is possible!' still cannot make the impossible, possible. It is an appeal to magic, as you noted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    Since you don't believe in mixed species, the foundation of evolution, then you don't
    believe in evolution. By the way, mixed species is a scientific term.
    That was easy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    A liger and a Tion (or tigon) are a mixed species. Tion and Ligers are a species. P. leo P. tigris
    A transitional species is a species that's supposed to change from one species to another. According
    to Darwin the geological record should show this. There is no evidence of this happening.
    I think we have a terminology problem. The ONLY organisms that can procreate are those closely related, or descended from the same family line. IOW, tigers & lions are both felids, descended from the same ancestor, but locked in reproductive isolation from *some* other felids. Equids have the same anomaly, such as with zebras, donkeys, & horses, which also can reproduce, but produce sterile offspring. But you cannot mix a felid & equid, & get anything. There has to be some relation for any reproduction to take place.

    Canidae, which was examined earlier in this thread, is different. I have not heard of any canids not able to reproduce with each other. Foxes, coyotes, wolves, dingos, etc.. all are canids, carry the mtDNA to show a common ancestor, & they have not locked themselves out in reproductive isolation. Why? I don't think we know, yet. It could be that we will discover 'why?', someday, as continued advances in genetics helps us explain the nature of living things. But for now, we don't know why some felids or equids can become reproductively isolated. Some fruit flies have been followed & branched out in trees until some strains have become reproductively isolated from other strains. It is possible that this could happen with humans, too, but for now, we remain the same species, able to reproduce with all other human 'strains'.

    But to label a reproductively isolated child branch a 'new species!' is a bit of poetic license. It is only by definition. Most of the time, the new 'species' is just a variation of the old one, but narrowed down to such restrictive trait choices that it has lost the ability to procreate with distant cousins. They have the same genetic makeup, the same chromosome pairs, & share MOST of the same morphology. IOW, you have 'micro' evolution within the family tree branches, such as with canids, felids, equids, etc. But there is nothing to indicate 'macro' evolution between such trees. We can follow the mtDNA in each tree, but there is nothing to indicate any descendancy or ancestry between the various trees.. there is nothing to indicate a common ancestor with canids & felids, for example, other than an imaginative drawing.

    So you don't really have 'mixed species'. You have some family trees branching out to reproductive isolation from other branches, & some sterile offspring if those branches are bred. it indicates descendancy, & the genetic architecture is nearly identical. But you cannot put a canid & a felid together.. they will fight like cats & dogs.
    Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. ~Eric Hoffer

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    They would still be the same species. I believe you're talking about a subspecies.
    If they were subspecies, then they would be able to cross breed. Since they cannot, they are different species by the definition you provided.
    The closer you think you are, the less you'll actually see.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    The 'barrier' is clearly there, & observable. Breeding is an example of using this barrier to produce certain traits in the child stock. When no new traits are added or introduced via breeding, the choices for selection are diminished. Fewer & fewer traits are available to future generations, as they are locked in to a narrow pattern. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with either breeding or natural selection, which are the same processes.
    While two related species are genetically dissimilar enough to prevent reproduction, it takes many generations to reach this point. During the process of speciation, no individual is genetically different enough from other members of the same generation to prevent breeding. The 'barrier' of sexual reproduction only applies over a generation or two, so it is not a problem for the theory of evolution.

    And, you cannot see or repeat any of these alleged changes. You cannot see or repeat a single new trait occurring in an organism. Where did the variability within canids come from? HOW did those traits suddenly appear, in such a short time? WHY would all that variability happen, all at once, then sit there waiting to come out?

    The 'accumulated small changes add up to big ones' is the central flaw of evolution. It is assumed, not observed, & the science of genetics is making that assumption seem crazier every day.

    It is the very first point of the OP, & this flaw has not been addressed, but ignored & reasserted. That is not a scientific argument, but a political one, where bluff & propaganda is used to promote a mythical belief.
    When selective breeding has produced hundreds of different dog breeds in just a few centuries, how can you deny the accumulation of small changes that underpins evolution? The only reason specific traits cannot be repeated is because the multiple genetic changes that cause them occur randomly and cannot be forced in a laboratory.

    But i cannot see the ToE lasting for much longer. It has been the defacto naturalistic view for over 100 yrs, usurping spontaneous generation, which lasted for centuries, as the naturalistic 'theory' of origins. The hard science of genetics is a big nail in the coffin, for the ToE.. it is coasting on 19th century arguments & charts, that do not reflect the current knowledge about genetics, & it completely depends on logical fallacies for it support. There is NO SCIENCE to back the ToE, as the 'origin of species'.
    People have been predicting the eminent end of the Theory of Evolution since it was first proposed 150 years ago. Not only has it withstood the hard science of genetics, but our growing understanding of DNA only reinforces it.
    Last edited by contrails; Feb 16 2017 at 06:51 AM.
    The closer you think you are, the less you'll actually see.

  4. Likes Cosmo liked this post
  5. #704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by contrails View Post
    If they were subspecies, then they would be able to cross breed. Since they cannot, they are different species by the definition you provided.
    It is a problem with terminology, specifically, the term 'species'. It is not a clear descriptive term. Even among evolutionists. From wiki:

    The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts. A species concept that works well for sexually reproducing organisms such as birds is useless for species that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria. The scientific study of the species problem has been called microtaxonomy.

    One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an organism belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable, and cryptic species may be present. There is a continuum from total reproductive isolation (no interbreeding) to panmixis, unlimited interbreeding. Populations can move forward or backwards along this continuum, at any point meeting the criteria for one or another species concept, and failing others.

    Many of the debates on species touch on philosophical issues, such as nominalism and realism, and on issues of language and cognition.

    "No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word." Nicholson (1872, p. 20)

    "The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)
    So whenever the 'debate' centers on the definition of 'species' there is seldom any enlightenment, as the definitions are vague, & not even agreed upon by those framing the debate. It becomes an argument of words, with competing definitions & changing goal posts.
    Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. ~Eric Hoffer

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    The 'barrier' is clearly there, & observable. Breeding is an example of using this barrier to produce certain traits in the child stock. When no new traits are added or introduced via breeding, the choices for selection are diminished. Fewer & fewer traits are available to future generations, as they are locked in to a narrow pattern. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with either breeding or natural selection, which are the same processes.
    (i) we DO have a 'historical record', in the mtDNA of some families. Canidae, which has been used extensively in this thread, is an example of this record, & the sequence of events in the micro evolution of the variety we see today. Perhaps some specific canid traits have been lost to extinction, as in other genetic 'families', but there were still enough to produce the wide variety of canids we see today.
    (ii)Speculation that mutation 'creates' genetic variability, such as within canidae, is flawed. There were too many traits in too short a time, for mutation & time to have 'created' them. The study i posted earlier stated this clearly. AND, there is NO RECORD of any traits being 'created' by mutation.. that is merely asserted. The slight variations from adaptation from e.coli & other bacteria are unique to bacteria, & their distinct genetic makeup.. a circular strand of dna, & even then, all you have are e.coli. They are not becoming anything else, even after millions of generations. They are clearly LOCKED into a genetic pattern. They can vary WITHIN the parameters of their DNA, but they do not add genes, add chromosome pairs, or become different organisms.
    (iii)Mutations do not do as you believe. They are not the mechanism for 'creating' new genes. They merely alter old ones, & not for the better, for the most part. It is only in certain organisms, such as e.coli that have a broader adaptability in their environment. Others, such as saber toothed cats, or wooly mammoths, lacked this adaptability, & went extinct. In fact, the entire record of extinction is the story of DEvolution, not evolution. As traits became narrowed in the family tree, those that could not adapt to changing environmental pressures died off. If they lacked the adaptability to use existing traits necessary to survive, they died. They did not conjure up new traits, or mutate themselves at will.

    Time & mutation is an imaginary process for 'creating' traits. This cannot be observed or repeated, yet it is hailed as the source of life & the origin of species.


    And, you cannot see or repeat any of these alleged changes. You cannot see or repeat a single new trait occurring in an organism. Where did the variability within canids come from? HOW did those traits suddenly appear, in such a short time? WHY would all that variability happen, all at once, then sit there waiting to come out?

    The 'accumulated small changes add up to big ones' is the central flaw of evolution. It is assumed, not observed, & the science of genetics is making that assumption seem crazier every day.

    It is the very first point of the OP, & this flaw has not been addressed, but ignored & reasserted. That is not a scientific argument, but a political one, where bluff & propaganda is used to promote a mythical belief.


    - - - Updated - - -


    You bring up many interesting points. I have noticed that for many hard core evolutionists, their devotion & loyalty to it is as an ideology, not a scientific concept. They are fully invested, philosophically, into the ToE as the basis for their naturalistic beliefs about origins & the universe, & to question that makes their whole worldview tremble. But i don't see it that way. I see the BELIEF in naturalistic origins as a belief, just as someone with supernaturalistic beliefs. And, just because they don't have the exact mechanism clearly defined, does not mean that there is NO NATURAL explanation, it just means we don't know, as yet. But this is unsatisfying to the dogmatist, who wants everything clearly & neatly defined, & framed in absolutes.

    But i cannot see the ToE lasting for much longer. It has been the defacto naturalistic view for over 100 yrs, usurping spontaneous generation, which lasted for centuries, as the naturalistic 'theory' of origins. The hard science of genetics is a big nail in the coffin, for the ToE.. it is coasting on 19th century arguments & charts, that do not reflect the current knowledge about genetics, & it completely depends on logical fallacies for it support. There is NO SCIENCE to back the ToE, as the 'origin of species'.

    It DOES matter to me, 'what the truth is'. As a theist, i do not care WHAT the mechanism 'was' or 'is' for HOW living things came about. Scientists for centuries have sought to understand 'what God hath wrought', & have peered deeply into the inner workings of God's creation, searching for a glimpse into the divine Cause. If it was evolution, fine.. i would accept that as the mechanism, just as i accept newton's theory of gravity, the attractions of mass, relativity, & quantum physics. But i see the holes & numerous serious flaws in the ToE, & cannot accept it as a valid explanation for origins. I don't know HOW it happened, either, & i am a seeker for this mystery. Maybe, some real mechanism will be discovered, that demonstrates the ability to change genetic structure, or create new genes, or add chromosomes.. but that seems unlikely, unless there is an event based change, or we go to the '2001 space odyssey' theory, with special beamed rays affecting the changes in short time periods. There are a lot of different imaginations about origins.. one or more might even have truth, or partial truth to them. But as science, we have methodology to adhere to. We cannot blend imagination with facts, & declare them the same.


    Yes, this was point #4 in the OP:

    It is merely wishful thinking, masked in statistical probability. But to calculate probability, you have to have some parameters to go by. Something that is observably impossible cannot be calculated, as a probability. It would not matter how many times you jumped up & down, to reach the moon. Unless you can show this as a physical, objective possibility, declaring, 'if you do it over enough time, anything is possible!' still cannot make the impossible, possible. It is an appeal to magic, as you noted.



    I think we have a terminology problem. The ONLY organisms that can procreate are those closely related, or descended from the same family line. IOW, tigers & lions are both felids, descended from the same ancestor, but locked in reproductive isolation from *some* other felids. Equids have the same anomaly, such as with zebras, donkeys, & horses, which also can reproduce, but produce sterile offspring. But you cannot mix a felid & equid, & get anything. There has to be some relation for any reproduction to take place.

    Canidae, which was examined earlier in this thread, is different. I have not heard of any canids not able to reproduce with each other. Foxes, coyotes, wolves, dingos, etc.. all are canids, carry the mtDNA to show a common ancestor, & they have not locked themselves out in reproductive isolation. Why? I don't think we know, yet. It could be that we will discover 'why?', someday, as continued advances in genetics helps us explain the nature of living things. But for now, we don't know why some felids or equids can become reproductively isolated. Some fruit flies have been followed & branched out in trees until some strains have become reproductively isolated from other strains. It is possible that this could happen with humans, too, but for now, we remain the same species, able to reproduce with all other human 'strains'.

    But to label a reproductively isolated child branch a 'new species!' is a bit of poetic license. It is only by definition. Most of the time, the new 'species' is just a variation of the old one, but narrowed down to such restrictive trait choices that it has lost the ability to procreate with distant cousins. They have the same genetic makeup, the same chromosome pairs, & share MOST of the same morphology. IOW, you have 'micro' evolution within the family tree branches, such as with canids, felids, equids, etc. But there is nothing to indicate 'macro' evolution between such trees. We can follow the mtDNA in each tree, but there is nothing to indicate any descendancy or ancestry between the various trees.. there is nothing to indicate a common ancestor with canids & felids, for example, other than an imaginative drawing.

    So you don't really have 'mixed species'. You have some family trees branching out to reproductive isolation from other branches, & some sterile offspring if those branches are bred. it indicates descendancy, & the genetic architecture is nearly identical. But you cannot put a canid & a felid together.. they will fight like cats & dogs.
    This is all hand waiving and you making baseless assertions. Please provide a peer reviewed paper for ANY of the claims you made in this post.

  7. Likes Burzmali, Cosmo liked this post
  8. #706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
    Any such barrier or limit would have to be located in the gametes so it could be passed from generation to generation. It would have to be a gene or group of genes. Of course, these genes would somehow (i) have to keep a historical record of how much change had occurred in the past for the current organisms' historic genetic lineage, (ii) keep that historical record for mutations throughout the entire genome (e.g., what occurred to genes on other chromosomes), (iii) be able to determine when the limit or barrier was reached and (iii) when the limit or barrier was reached would have to be able to stop further mutations from occurring at all (e.g., stop cosmic rays, insure no duplication errors, etc.). Of course, evidence that this process was actually occurring would include a total lack of mutations from one generation to the next. Such evidence has not been observed. Indeed, all observed evidence demonstrates that mutations always occur from one generation to the next.
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    The 'barrier' is clearly there, & observable.
    ...(irrelevant material snipped)
    You dodged the content of my post. You claim a 'barrier' exists to macroevolution.

    What is the biological mechanism that imposes that barrier? I proposed what it must be, at a minimum, in my post, which you totally ignored. You also claim this barrier is observable. Please identify this observable biological mechanism.
    Last edited by sdelsolray; Feb 16 2017 at 02:53 PM.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    The 'barrier' is clearly there, & observable. Breeding is an example of using this barrier to produce certain traits in the child stock. ...snip....
    As has been on display throughout this thread and pointed out multiple times....There is an extremely obvious aspect to this whole concept that you for some reason cannot grasp and place into understanding. Breeding IS the mechanism that allows for evolution and genetic changes but, it takes many generations and vast amounts of the one thing you refuse to comprehend.

    TIME.

  10. #708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
    You dodged the content of my post. You claim a 'barrier' exists to macroevolution.

    What is the biological mechanism that imposes that barrier? I proposed what it must be, at a minimum, in my post, which you totally ignored. You also claim this barrier is observable. Please identify this observable biological mechanism.
    I not only did not dodge it, i addressed it directly in my reply. DNA is the barrier. It is unique to each organism, & does NOT vary willy nilly within its parameters, but consistently outputs whatever is input. And, when there are traits that are 'bred' out, via natural or man made selection, the result is a NARROWER choice of selection & a standardization of traits. Instead of more, you get less variability, as undesired or unneeded traits are left behind in the dustbin of selection.

    There is NO MECHANISM that 'creates' traits on the fly. The child organism can only produce what was in the parent stock, with some degradation. It is a slow dwindling of the number of traits or variable available, but it eventually becomes narrowed down in a specific trait pattern.. that which we label a breed (or sometimes, species, or sub-species).

    Any geneticist recognizes this barrier, as do animal breeders. There are not 'new traits' being randomly created in each organism, messing up the desired trait output. Instead, you get a steady narrowing of variability, as the selection process depletes the available varieties.

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    As has been on display throughout this thread and pointed out multiple times....There is an extremely obvious aspect to this whole concept that you for some reason cannot grasp and place into understanding. Breeding IS the mechanism that allows for evolution and genetic changes but, it takes many generations and vast amounts of the one thing you refuse to comprehend.

    TIME.


    Again? You just keep repeating the same old, tired, refuted claims. Time has NO MECHANISM to provoke change. If the process cannot be observed, repeated, & analyzed over the last several millennia, adding millions more does not give it a better chance. This is a scientific process, not a shot at the lottery.
    One Mind & i both addressed this a few posts up. Did you think this somehow did not apply?

    Quote Originally Posted by One Mind View Post
    They depend upon magic time. Time exerts a powerful force on genetics. It can do things, which our intellect does not have a clue as to how it does it. So, it is magical, powerful magic. To replicate what time does, which has no intent, requires a magician. The are scientists and not magicians. They are missing the magic.

    Yes, this was point #4 in the OP:

    4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.

    It is merely wishful thinking, masked in statistical probability. But to calculate probability, you have to have some parameters to go by. Something that is observably impossible cannot be calculated, as a probability. It would not matter how many times you jumped up & down, to reach the moon. Unless you can show this as a physical, objective possibility, declaring, 'if you do it over enough time, anything is possible!' still cannot make the impossible, possible. It is an appeal to magic, as you noted.


    I just found that darwin facepalm.. & wanted to use it in this discussion. I don't think you are dumb, but i could not edit it to say anything else. But, that you continue to ignore rational arguments, & keep repeating irrational ones, seems to make the graphic apply more than i might think...
    Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. ~Eric Hoffer

  11. #709

    Default

    Since i have used canidae a lot in this thread, i'll show a useful graphic, to get the concepts across. Many phylogeneticists are preferring the circular 'hub' to the sideways tree, as it more clearly communicates the sequence of events.



    There have been many studies, including the one i referenced earlier, that show the clear descendancy in canidae. You can trace the mtDNA in each 'branch' to the parent stock, which contained all the original genetic variability.

    As you go out from the central hub, variability begins to decrease, as certain 'breeds' become locked in morphological & genetic patterns. A schnauzer is at the end of its variability, without the pool of genes to pick from. Many of the 'old' genes are still there, but in smaller amounts, that lessen the odds of them coming up in the procreation slot machine.

    Canidae is a perfect example of 'micro' evolution, and the devolution within a family tree. We can trace the descendancy, observe the ability to reproduce between the various 'breeds', & the most important SCIENTIFIC process, see the mtDNA as a proof of descendancy. We are not stuck with a 'looks like!' morphology to guess at descendancy, but can trace it through the dna.

    How can you conclude anything other than 'devolution' from canidae? Where did all this variability come from, in the short time humans have been breeding canids? What process 'created' all this variety? One of the mantras of evolutionary biology is 'selection acts upon existing variability', so all of these traits were there, waiting for opportunity to come out via the slot machine of procreation. They did, & we have the current breeds. Some traits have been lost, never to be seen again, through extinction. New ones are not being made, by any process we can observe or repeat. So the 'theory' of macro evolution has no basis, & the opposite is actually observed.

    Now, i know that i am pretty much the only one who presents science, arguments, facts, & studies in this thread, regarding this topic. I would LOVE it if anyone would rebut this post with anything that resembles science. But i don't expect it. I expect logical fallacies, as that is what has been given, for the most part, throughout this thread.

    1. If variability is created on the fly, why do we NOT see added variability all the time, within each species? Instead, we observe narrowing of variability, as breeds become locked in morphological patterns.
    2. WHERE did all the original variability come from, if they are supposed to be 'slow incremental changes' over millions of years?
    3. Canids have a lot of morphological differences, all observed within the last few hundred years, not over 'millions of years'. Why? How?
    Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. ~Eric Hoffer

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I not only did not dodge it, i addressed it directly in my reply. DNA is the barrier. It is unique to each organism, & does NOT vary willy nilly within its parameters, but consistently outputs whatever is input. And, when there are traits that are 'bred' out, via natural or man made selection, the result is a NARROWER choice of selection & a standardization of traits. Instead of more, you get less variability, as undesired or unneeded traits are left behind in the dustbin of selection.

    There is NO MECHANISM that 'creates' traits on the fly. The child organism can only produce what was in the parent stock, with some degradation. It is a slow dwindling of the number of traits or variable available, but it eventually becomes narrowed down in a specific trait pattern.. that which we label a breed (or sometimes, species, or sub-species).

    Any geneticist recognizes this barrier, as do animal breeders. There are not 'new traits' being randomly created in each organism, messing up the desired trait output. Instead, you get a steady narrowing of variability, as the selection process depletes the available varieties.




    Again? You just keep repeating the same old, tired, refuted claims. Time has NO MECHANISM to provoke change. If the process cannot be observed, repeated, & analyzed over the last several millennia, adding millions more does not give it a better chance. This is a scientific process, not a shot at the lottery.
    One Mind & i both addressed this a few posts up. Did you think this somehow did not apply?








    I just found that darwin facepalm.. & wanted to use it in this discussion. I don't think you are dumb, but i could not edit it to say anything else. But, that you continue to ignore rational arguments, & keep repeating irrational ones, seems to make the graphic apply more than i might think...
    This is more hand waiving and simply stating "nuh uh". You've been challenged numerous times to provide a peer reviewed paper, or ANY evidence at all for the claims you keep making. Why do you continue to ignore this?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 71 of 89 FirstFirst ... 6167686970717273747581 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks