Evolution of The Beetles [Archive] - Page 2

magellan004

February 27th 2011, 11:08 PM

I'm not "inventing" them. THEY'RE IN YOUR OP.

If you think your assumptions are different from what I've stated them to be, then tell us what they are.

Yes there is. CORRECT THEM.

What are the real population numbers you claim you've assumed?
What is the geographic or other isolation you claim you've assumed?
What are the other differences in addition to color you claim you've assumed?

As you are so fond of saying:

STAND AND DELIVER ::bonk::

Yes, these assumptions:

Population never less than 10 nor more than 20;
No geographic isolation;
No genetic difference other than color.

If these assumptions are incorrect, then correct them. You don't "correct" my statements by saying "those aren't my assumptions." You correct them by telling me what they really are.

I provided all the assumptions in my model in which speciation will happen. Why can't you do the same?

Why can't you tell us what assumptions you actually used?

Assumptions of The Beetle Model.

Year tx , about 10 Brown Beetles living on an island that had no other beetles but was very close to the mainland. These Beetles produce children about once a year and only have one breeding season..

Millions of years later , in say Year ty, there are 20 Beetles.
Professor Smithers Bones examines all of the Beetles There are some brown Beetles. The rest are green.
He can trace each beetle back through time.

Population never less than 10 nor more than 20; We have a beginning population and an end population. There is no assumption about what happened in between.

No geographic isolation; The Beetles start off on an island. I said that the mainland was close by in case you wanted some of The Beetles to take a journey in the intermediate years.

No genetic difference other than color.
We know the Beetles started off as Brown Beetles. We know at the end only Brown and Green Beetles are on the island. Again, you may need to argue that some Beetles had taken an overseas trip and (some ) returned - and there is nothing in the assumptions to rule that out.

I know you want all of the blanks to be filled in - but I am more interested to see, using the Evolution Story, how the blanks might be filled in.

I don't see any of my assumptions as unrealistic at all. The advantage is , they enable us to observe what's going on. You can't observe millions of Beetles.

(The traceability of The Beetles ancestors is , of course , unrealistic but it's just an aid to analysis.)

Maybe your hang-up is reflected in your use of the colour spectrum. You don't seem to understand that - no matter how big the population, no matter how long the time period, change starts with ONE Parent Pair having a child. You seem to think change can happen by some sort of Genetic Ray Gun zapping large numbers of animals at once.

And I know why you think that way. because if each change starts with one child, then every change starts with one child , not a 'population'.

Magellan

Tiggy

February 27th 2011, 11:09 PM

Tiggy

February 27th 2011, 11:16 PM

.

I don't see any of my assumptions as unrealistic at all.

Magellan

Of course you don't Clownshoes. That's because you're as ignorant as they come about evolutionary biology. Willfully ignorant to boot, because you've ignored the dozens of attempts to teach you the proper terminology and actual processes involved in speciation.

Doesn't seem to bother you even a little bit, since you obviously enjoy staying an ignorant boob.

- T

lao tzu

February 27th 2011, 11:49 PM

Conceivably, none of the 20 ty beetles are descended from any of the original 10 tx beetles, and nothing could be said about their evolution. They might represent 20 separate species. Conceivably, all of the 20 ty beetles share the same parents, and must then have evolved as one species. Conceivably, observations of their mating behavior might show that no brown beetle ever mates with a green beetle, in which case they are separate species. Conceivably, observations might shown that green beetles always mate with brown beetles, in which case they must be members of the same species.

Every case in between is possible as well.

Insufficient data.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 12:05 AM

Assumptions of The Beetle Model.

Year tx , about 10 Brown Beetles living on an island that had no other beetles but was very close to the mainland. These Beetles produce children about once a year and only have one breeding season..

Millions of years later , in say Year ty, there are 20 Beetles.
Professor Smithers Bones examines all of the Beetles There are some brown Beetles. The rest are green.
He can trace each beetle back through time.

All you're doing is repeating what I've said, Magellan. Here are your assumptions:

Never less than 10 beetles nor more than 20 beetles.
No geographic or other isolation.
No genetic differences other than for color.

If you think these are wrong, then point out where in your "model" you talk about:

numbers of beetles less than 10 or more than 20;
whatever isolation there is;
what other genetic differences there are.

I've asked this over and over and over again, but you simply cannot come up with anything.

We have a beginning population and an end population. There is no assumption about what happened in between.

So you're making no assumptions about the number of beetles. There could be one beetle, or there could be one hundred billion beetles.

The Beetles start off on an island. I said that the mainland was close by in case you wanted some of The Beetles to take a journey in the intermediate years.

Whose "model" is this, Magellan? If anyone starts talking about beetles being anywhere other than your island, everyone knows exactly what you're going to say: "Stop making stuff up." So. No assumptions about any isolation or location of the beetles. They could go to a completely different location and then come back, half could move to the mainland and then move back, half the beetles could be restricted to one end of the island and the other half restricted to the other end of the island.

No assumptions about the locations of these beetles at all. They could be anywhere.

We know the Beetles started off as Brown Beetles. We know at the end only Brown and Green Beetles are on the island. Again, you may need to argue that some Beetles had taken an overseas trip and (some ) returned - and there is nothing in the assumptions to rule that out.

If we do that, you're going to tell us to "stop making things up."

If we talk about other differences in these beetles besides color, you're going to tell us to "stop making things up."

I know you want all of the blanks to be filled in - but I am more interested to see, using the Evolution Story, how the blanks might be filled in.

So in other words, you want us to make up our own model, since your own "model" doesn't specify anything at all about these beetles. No assumptions about how many beetles, no assumptions about where they're located, no assumptions about any differences among them. Apparently the only assumptions you're willing to cop to is that these beetles exist.

So you want "the blanks filled in"? Okay, here are the blanks filled in:

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.

Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.

I've listed all of my assumptions. There is no question about what my assumptions are: how many beetles they are, where they're located, what sorts of mutations there could be, what sort of isolation different populations have from each other.

But you don't like my model because I use undefined, meaningless terms like "population," "radiation," "gene flow," and "genetic drift." All of which I've already defined, but even if I hadn't defined them anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory—i.e., anyone besides you—would come into this conversation already knowing what they mean.

I don't see any of my assumptions as unrealistic at all.
You won't even admit to MAKING any assumptions. You won't admit you've made any assumptions about how many beetles there are. You won't admit you've made any assumptions about where they're located. You won't admit you've made any assumptions about what sorts of differences there are.

The only assumptions you'll admit to is that there are beetles, some of them live on an island, and some are brown and some are green.

The advantage is , they enable us to observe what's going on. You can't observe millions of Beetles.

What are you "observing" happening to these beetles, Magellan? You can't even tell me where they're located or how many of them there are.

(The traceability of The Beetles ancestors is , of course , unrealistic but it's just an aid to analysis.)

No it's not. It doesn't add a single thing to your "analysis."

Maybe your hang-up is reflected in your use of the colour spectrum. You don't seem to understand that - no matter how big the population, no matter how long the time period, change starts with ONE Parent Pair having a child. You seem to think change can happen by some sort of Genetic Ray Gun zapping large numbers of animals at once.

I know for a fact it happens in large numbers of animals all at once. Every single one of your beetles has at least one mutation. Every single generation results in at least one mutation.

You seem to think mutations happen one at a time. That's YOUR hangup.

And I know why you think that way. because if each change starts with one child, then every change starts with one child , not a 'population'.

I know why you think the way you do. It's because you know NOTHING about how evolutionary theory works.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 12:06 AM

Just answer this simple question, Magellan:

How many beetles are there in your "simulation"?

Theostudent

February 28th 2011, 12:19 AM

Just answer this simple question, Magellan:

How many beetles are there in your "simulation"?

What if the number of beetles is this http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html then what?

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 12:25 AM

I think that is key. He has no idea of the assumptions he's making because he simply can't analyse any thinking, including his own. His demonstrated history of incomprehension of others is evidence that he cannot even comprehend what he's saying, his assumptions or its conclusions. He just disagrees. I imagine he disagrees with himself frequently but doesn't have the wit to realise it.

Magellan does cargo-cult science.

Why did he even mention the number of beetles? It's irrelevant. He states unequivocally there could be any number of beetles between time x and time y (which are stated to be "millions of years" apart. Two million? Twenty million? Two hundred million? Who knows? Certainly not Magellan.). There could be two. There could be two billion.

Why does he even say where the beetles are? They're on an "island, very close to the mainland." What difference does it make? Do they stay on the island? Do they all move to the mainland? Do the green beetles even arise on the island? Maybe they arose on the mainland and then migrated to the island. Maybe the green beetles aren't even related to the brown ones. Maybe they could never interbreed with the brown beetles.

Why does he tell us what the beetles' breeding season is? Does it have any relevance at all? Who cares that the beetles can only reproduce once? Does that have the slightest relevance to his "model"? Magellan doesn't say. Because he doesn't know.

Why does he think it's important that he can trace back the lineage of any beetle (for "millions of years," i.e. millions of generations)? Does this have any impact on his "model"?

In short, there isn't a single thing Magellan mentions in his "model" that tells us anything at all. He may as well have not bothered to tell us anything beyond:

There are some brown and green beetles.

The rest of his "model" doesn't tell us anything useful beyond that there are some green and brown beetles.

Theostudent

February 28th 2011, 12:26 AM

There are some brown and green beetles.

I concur Holmes, what do you make of it?

Theostudent

February 28th 2011, 01:18 AM

Sup Occams Aftershave? hows Cali these days?

phaedrus

February 28th 2011, 01:31 AM

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 01:42 AM

All you're doing is repeating what I've said, Magellan.
You asked what assumptions were in The Beetle model. You've asked a few times.

Here are your assumptions:

Never less than 10 beetles nor more than 20 beetles.
No geographic or other isolation.
No genetic differences other than for color.

If you think these are wrong, then point out where in your "model" you talk about:

numbers of beetles less than 10 or more than 20;
whatever isolation there is;
what other genetic differences there are.

I've asked this over and over and over again, but you simply cannot come up with anything.

Is there an echo in the room?

If we talk about other differences in these beetles besides color, you're going to tell us to "stop making things up."
No one that I recall has made anything up but you.

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.

Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.

I've listed all of my assumptions. There is no question about what my assumptions are: how many beetles they are, where they're located, what sorts of mutations there could be, what sort of isolation different populations have from each other.

Start your own thread.

I think I've work out your 'issue'. The idea of The Beetles was to set up a thread where we could discuss different situations - What-If's.

For example (the one we've done) 'What if Smithers Bones saw Green and Brown Beetles on the one bush?' What would be necessary to get to that point?

Another example might be 'What if Smithers Brown saw some Beetles with long legs and some with short legs - how might we explain that? What would have needed to have happen for that outcome.

Think of it as a little Beetle Laboratory. You are welcome to throw in some 'What If's?'.

I can think of another right now - 'What if Smithers Bones saw Green and Brown Beetles on one shrub and they all could mate with each other? How could that happen?

Loosen up.

I know for a fact it happens in large numbers of animals all at once. Every single one of your beetles has at least one mutation. Every single generation results in at least one mutation.

You seem to think mutations happen one at a time. That's YOUR hangup.

Can you explain that gobbledygook -

1. ' (Change) happens in large numbers of animals all at once.'
That makes no sense - Eg. All of parrots in a flock all of a sudden grows hands?

2. 'Every single generation results in at least one mutation.'
Didn't you recently say that every single child is born with many mutations?
A generation doesn't mutate .
I don't understand 1. or 2. Please explain.

And anyway , is it important? What I said contains the vital info - ' no matter how big the population, no matter how long the time period, change starts with ONE Parent Pair having a child.'

I think you just wanted to say something, anything.

Magellan

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 02:22 AM

You asked what assumptions were in The Beetle model. You've asked a few times.

Is there an echo in the room?

No. It's me asking you over, and over, and over, and over, what assumptions your "model" has. I take what you actually posted, YOUR OWN WORDS, and list the assumptions.

You then deny those are actually your assumptions.

But you won't tell us what assumptions you actually make. So it turns out your "model" makes no assumptions at all.

You can't tell us how many beetles there are.
You can't tell us where they are.
You can't tell us what differences there are besides color
.

All you can actually tell us is that there are green beetles and brown beetles.

No one that I recall has made anything up but you.

You ask me to "fill in the blanks." I fill in the blanks.

You accuse me of "making things up."

Start your own thread.

Nope. You specifically ask me to "fill in the blanks." I fill in the blanks. You respond by telling me to start my own thread.

I could not have come up with a better example of how fundamentally dishonest creationists are if I'd made you up out of whole cloth, Magellan.

I think I've work out your 'issue'.

Every time you try to "think," hilarity ensues.

The idea of The Beetles was to set up a thread where we could discuss different situations - What-If's.

But somehow, whenever someone proposes a "what if," your response is, "stop making things up."

For example (the one we've done) 'What if Smithers Bones saw Green and Brown Beetles on the one bush?' What would be necessary to get to that point?

Not much. Some green beetles flew in from the mainland. Is there anything in your "model" that rules that out as a possibility?

Another example might be 'What if Smithers Brown saw some Beetles with long legs and some with short legs - how might we explain that? What would have needed to have happen for that outcome.

Same thing. Maybe some species of long-legged beetle flew in from the mainland.

The problem with your moronic "model" is that anything is possible. You can't tell us how many beetles there are. You can't tell us where they're from. You can't tell us whether the green beetles have anything to do with the brown beetles.

Think of it as a little Beetle Laboratory. You are welcome to throw in some 'What If's?'.

And every time I do that, you say "Stop making things up."

You want us to put in some "what ifs." I gave you a complete list of "what ifs." Your response?

No one that I recall has made anything up but you.

I can think of another right now - 'What if Smithers Bones saw Green and Brown Beetles on one shrub and they all could mate with each other? How could that happen?

Maybe they're all the same species, and there are green varieties and brown varieties, just as some humans have green eyes and some have brown eyes. In fact, if your green beetles and brown beetles can interbreed, then they are by definition the same species anyway. What's to explain? Even a slack-jawed mouth-breathing creationist would agree they're the same species.

With no constraints on your model, anything is possible.

Loosen up.

Smarten up.

Can you explain that gobbledygook -

1. ' (Change) happens in large numbers of animals all at once.'

What's to explain? You think there's some rule that only one mutation happens at a time? Right now, you have probably 150 different mutations in different cells in your body, Magellan. So does everyone else in the world. No two humans (with the exception of identical twins) have identical genomes.

Maybe you can explain why you think change happens in one animal at a time.

That makes no sense - Eg. All of parrots in a flock all of a sudden grows hands?
That you would think even one parrot would ever grow a hand is symptomatic of your mentally-retarded misunderstanding of evolutionary processes.

2. 'Every single generation results in at least one mutation.'
Per individual per generation, Moron. In the human population of seven billion, every single nucleotide in the entire genome mutates at least once in that population every generation.

In humans, the background rate of mutation is between one and five mutations for every 100 million nucleotides. The human (haploid) genome is about three billion base pairs. But there are nearly ten billion humans. That means every single nucleotide mutates at least once somewhere in the human genome every generation or so.

Didn't you recently say that every single child is born with many mutations?

Yep.

A generation doesn't mutate .

Individuals in that generation certainly do.

The problem, Magellan, is when you think of a "mutation," you think of something like a baby growing an arm out of the top of its head. The vast majority of mutations have no phenotypic consequences at all. But that undoubtedly comes as news to you.

I don't understand 1. or 2. Please explain.

You don't understand much of anything. Which is why the fact that you think you're qualified to discuss something like evolutionary theory is so comical.

And anyway , is it important? What I said contains the vital info - ' no matter how big the population, no matter how long the time period, change starts with ONE Parent Pair having a child.'

No It Does Not. Change is all through populations. The notion that every single change to the genome happens exactly once in exactly one individual is laughably wrong.

Like virtually everything else you've ever said.

I think you just wanted to say something, anything.

I'm just trolling you, Magellan. I'm just provoking you into saying stupider and stupider things. I mean, it can't have escaped your notice that you're the laughingstock of NatSci301. The only one you seem to have impressed here is your gay fish friend who posts links to YouTube videos.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 02:33 AM

In Magellan's mind, this is what this thread is about:

"Hey, so, uh, we've got these beetles. They live somewhere, not really sure where. They're brown. After a while, there are green beetles. Who knows where the green beetles came from?"

And from that, we're supposed to get an explanation of how evolution works. These beetles are "going to walk us through a hypothetical simulation of evolution."

Sure they are.

(And what's especially entertaining is that the UCMP page from which Magellan got the idea for his little "simulation" discusses selection, not speciation.)

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 07:12 AM

No It Does Not. Change is all through populations. The notion that every single change to the genome happens exactly once in exactly one individual is laughably wrong.

Maybe you have a point.
Why would anyone think there was 'a' common ancestor?

Take people with brown eyes (assuming people didn't always have brown eyes ) .
Brown eyes would have started with lots of people at the same time. There is no common ancestor of people with brown eyes.

Every character would have originated in many organisms world wide at the same time. (according to evolution).

I never thought of it like that.
Thanks.

Magellan

phaedrus

February 28th 2011, 08:19 AM

Maybe you have a point.
Why would anyone think there was 'a' common ancestor?

Take people with brown eyes (assuming people didn't always have brown eyes ) .
Brown eyes would have started with lots of people at the same time. There is no common ancestor of people with brown eyes.

Every character would have originated in many organisms world wide at the same time. (according to evolution).

I never thought of it like that.
Thanks.

Magellan

I wish you'd stop using the phrase 'according to evolution'. It's abundantly clear you have no idea what evolution is about.

Sparko

February 28th 2011, 10:36 AM

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 11:42 AM

Maybe you have a point.
Which you will of course miss.

Why would anyone think there was 'a' common ancestor?

Same reason as always: nested hierarchies.

But you're not getting what it means for a clade to have a common ancestor. The common ancestor of all amniote species was an amniote species. It's likely all amniotes today might trace back to a single individual amniote as an ancestor (or actually two, one maternal ancestor, one paternal ancestor, who were not a mating pair), just as all living humans trace back to "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam," who weren't even alive at the same time. There were other amniotes alive at the time, but none left living descendants. Also, specifically which individual amniote is the common ancestor of all living amniotes changes over time as individuals die off and entire taxa go extinct.

Your notion that every species starts out when a mating pair have a child that is a different species from themselves is laughably wrong.

Take people with brown eyes (assuming people didn't always have brown eyes ) .
Brown eyes would have started with lots of people at the same time. There is no common ancestor of people with brown eyes.

Let's take a better example: we know humans did not always have blue eyes, because none of their close relatives, chimps or gorillas, have blue eyes (this is the value of outgroups, Magellan—they allow us to distinguish primitive and derived states). It's virtually certain that the mutations (there are more than one) responsible for blue eyes arose separately in different individuals. Whether or not blue-eyed humans comprise a clade (all the descendants of a blue-eyed ancestor who also had blue eyes) does not change the fact that all humans have a common ancestor.

It's like you think all the traits that define amniotes (and there are hundreds of them) all arose in one individual organism at one time.

Every character would have originated in many organisms world wide at the same time. (according to evolution).

No. But it is definitely not true that traits arise one at a time. Which is what you apparently think. In your toy "simulation," you apparently believe that a green beetle was born which instantly comprised its own species, which was not interfertile with any brown beetle. That's not how it works. There are hundreds of traits that distinguish humans from chimps. Do you think all those traits arose simultaneously in a single individual?

I never thought of it like that.
Of course not. You never think.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 12:07 PM

So back to Magellan's "simulation of evolution."

What can you tell us about your "simulation," Magellan?

How many beetles are there?
Where do they live?
What differences are there, other than color, between green beetles and brown beetles?

I'd say the odds that Magellan will ever answer any of these questions are essentially zero.

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 01:26 PM

um Mag, let's say that one brown pair of beetles had a green offspring. And as you said Green beetles can't interbreed with Brown Beetles right?

How exactly is that ONE individual green beetle going to have any offspring of its own?

That's how I saw it too. Lao Tzu pointed this out as a possibility -

(This is what I understood he meant)

Let's say Factor X is the thing that prevents mating with Brown Beetles.
Green Beetle X has Factor X. Green Beetle Plain does not have Factor X.
There have to be several intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.
What we need is Green Beetle X and Green Beetles Plain at some stage living together- interbreeding.
So say first of all some Brown Beetles head off for the mainland. Some Brown Beetles stay on the Island.
On the mainland -
1. Brown Beetles all turn into Blue Beetles.
2. A pair of Blue Beetles gives birth to a Green Beetle Plain.
3. Green Beetle Plain takes over.
4. A pair of Green Beetles Plain gives birth to Green Beetle X.
5. Eventually we have a group of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X.
6. Something wipes out all Green Beetles Plain.
7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetle.

It requires Factor X to have two functions - Inability to breed with Brown Beetles and immunity from whatever it was that wiped-out Green Beetle Plain.

Mind you - The inability of Green Beetles to interbreed with brown Beetles was a 'What-If?' - it was not part of the assumptions of the model I set up.

Magellan

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 01:42 PM

Let's take a better example: we know humans did not always have blue eyes, because none of their close relatives, chimps or gorillas, have blue eyes
And you tell me you are not assuming speciation!
I know now you are kidding.

No. But it is definitely not true that traits arise one at a time. Which is what you apparently think. In your toy "simulation," you apparently believe that a green beetle was born which instantly comprised its own species, which was not interfertile with any brown beetle. That's not how it works. There are hundreds of traits that distinguish humans from chimps. Do you think all those traits arose simultaneously in a single individual?
(Going along with your jokes )
Anyone with a low fore-head, big jaw and hairy chest cannot mate with an Ayran.

Magellan

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 01:51 PM

That's how I saw it too. Lao Tzu pointed this out as a possibility -

(This is what I understood he meant)

Let's say Factor X is the thing that prevents mating with Brown Beetles.
There would not be a single "Factor X" that prevents interbreeding. There would be an accumulation of mutations that makes interfertility lower and lower until there is eventually complete reproductive isolation.

Your problem, that you cannot seem to get around, is that you think speciation happens in a single generation. It doesn't. It's a gradual process occurring over hundreds of thousands to millions of generations.

Green Beetle X has Factor X. Green Beetle Plain does not have Factor X.
Factors X. Not Factor_ X.

There have to be several intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.
There are hundreds of thousands of intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.

What we need is Green Beetle X and Green Beetles Plain at some stage living together- interbreeding.
Green beetles, whether they're X or not, can always interbreed.

So say first of all some Brown Beetles head off for the mainland. Some Brown Beetles stay on the Island.
On the mainland -
1. Brown Beetles all turn into Blue Beetles.
2. A pair of Blue Beetles gives birth to a Green Beetle Plain.
3. Green Beetle Plain takes over.
4. A pair of Green Beetles Plain gives birth to Green Beetle X.
5. Eventually we have a group of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X.
6. Something wipes out all Green Beetles Plain.
No. That's not how it happens. The various mutations the X variety possesses spread throughout the population of green beetles until all green beetles possess these mutations. That's what "fixation" is: a mutation that spreads throughout an population until it is possessed by all members of that population.

Everything you're picturing happening, you picture happening more or less instantaneously, by evolutionary standards. It's like you think a single mutation makes green beetles unable to interbreed with brown beetles, and that it all happens in a generation or two.

Try to get it through your thick, brainless skull: speciation is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of generations at minimum to complete. Interfertility goes from 100% to 99% to 98% to…3% to 2% to 1%, with thousands of generations between each drop of 1%.

Whether you agree that this actually happens or not is irrelevant. It's what evolutionary theory asserts. if you want to argue about whether evolutionary theory is correct or not, you at least have to know what it asserts.

Evolutionary theory does not assert that speciation happens due to single mutations in a generation or two (with very rare exceptions).

7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetle.

That's geographic isolation followed by genetic drift followed by an overlap of range. Which is exactly what happens in the model I provided you, but which you thought was unworkable.

It requires Factor X to have two functions - Inability to breed with Brown Beetles and immunity from whatever it was that wiped-out Green Beetle Plain.

Nope. "Factor X" is many, many, many mutations. There's no "immunity," and there's no "wiping out" of any green beetles. All it takes is that a large group of mutations which, taken together, result in a genome that is incompatible with the brown beetles' genome (which has been undergoing its own series of mutations in the meantime) which go to fixation in the green beetle population.

Mind you - The inability of Green Beetles to interbreed with brown Beetles was a 'What-If?' - it was not part of the assumptions of the model I set up.

Your "model" didn't have any assumptions. The only "assumptions" you made were that there were originally just brown beetles and then millions of years later there were both brown and green beetles.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 02:01 PM

And you tell me you are not assuming speciation!
I know now you are kidding.

I'm assuming evolutionary theory is correct, based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it, on this particular subject, moron. I'm not "assuming speciation" in my explanation of how speciation is likely to occur. There is evidence, based on the fact that no close relatives of humans have blue eyes, that humans have not always had blue eyes. There is no evidence that at least some humans have not always had brown eyes. Why is this such an impossible concept for you?

Show me where in my model there's any "assumption" of speciation.

And in the meantime, you are implicitly assuming creation. Why is okay for you to assume creation, but not okay for me to assume common descent?

And I'll leave the racist speculation to you, Magellan.

Sparko

February 28th 2011, 02:17 PM

That's how I saw it too. Lao Tzu pointed this out as a possibility -

(This is what I understood he meant)

Let's say Factor X is the thing that prevents mating with Brown Beetles.
Green Beetle X has Factor X. Green Beetle Plain does not have Factor X.
There have to be several intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.
What we need is Green Beetle X and Green Beetles Plain at some stage living together- interbreeding.
So say first of all some Brown Beetles head off for the mainland. Some Brown Beetles stay on the Island.
On the mainland -
1. Brown Beetles all turn into Blue Beetles.
2. A pair of Blue Beetles gives birth to a Green Beetle Plain.
3. Green Beetle Plain takes over.
4. A pair of Green Beetles Plain gives birth to Green Beetle X.
5. Eventually we have a group of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X.
6. Something wipes out all Green Beetles Plain.
7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetle.

It requires Factor X to have two functions - Inability to breed with Brown Beetles and immunity from whatever it was that wiped-out Green Beetle Plain.

Mind you - The inability of Green Beetles to interbreed with brown Beetles was a 'What-If?' - it was not part of the assumptions of the model I set up.

Magellan

now you are just changing the parameters of your scenario. You said:

1. A brown beetle gave birth to a green beetle.
That eliminates blue beetles and intermediary steps

and

2. That no green beetle can interbreed with brown beetles.

That pretty much louses up your whole simulation since 1 green beetle cannot breed with anything and would die out.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 02:41 PM

Magellan simply refuses to accept what his assumptions are in his "model," as to number of beetles, their location, the differences beyond color in any of the beetles, etc. About the only assumptions he'll cop to is that there are beetles, they come in two different colors, and that the two varieties distinguished by color cannot interbreed.

Based on those two assumptions, he thinks he's going to show us that speciation can't happen. Even though it's an assumption that it does happen.

It's kind of entertaining, Magellan, that you keep accusing me of "assuming speciation," when in fact it's assumption of your own "model" that it happens.

Unless you no longer believe that green beetles can't interbreed with brown beetles.

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 02:53 PM

now you are just changing the parameters of your scenario. You said:

1. A brown beetle gave birth to a green beetle.

Please give the post where I said that.

Magellan

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 02:57 PM

I'm assuming evolutionary theory is correct, based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it, on this particular subject, moron. I'm not "assuming speciation" in my explanation of how speciation is likely to occur. There is evidence, based on the fact that no close relatives of humans have blue eyes, that humans have not always had blue eyes. There is no evidence that at least some humans have not always had brown eyes. Why is this such an impossible concept for you?

Show me where in my model there's any "assumption" of speciation.

And in the meantime, you are implicitly assuming creation. Why is okay for you to assume creation, but not okay for me to assume common descent?

And I'll leave the racist speculation to you, Magellan.

Heh heh. Humans and Chimps are related but that's nothing to do with speciation.
I like your sense of humour.
Your serious , insulting , bellicose facade had me fooled.

Magellan

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 03:06 PM

Speciation is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of generations at minimum to complete.

Stop contradicting yourself.
Exactly what do you think is 'completed'?
You've always argued about fuzzy boundaries.

Oh, and none of this sort of stuff please - 'Speciation is complete when this species can't interbreed with that species.'

Magellan

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 03:26 PM

Heh heh. Humans and Chimps are related but that's nothing to do with speciation.

Magellan, YOUR OWN "SIMULATION" ASSUMES SPECIATION.

So why is it okay for your "simulation" to assume speciation, but not okay for me to assume speciation anywhere under any circumstances?

It would be one thing if I were assuming speciation in my explanation of how speciation happens. If you can find an example of any explanation I've ever made for speciation assuming speciation, please point it out.

Otherwise, shut up about "assuming speciation."

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 03:32 PM

Stop contradicting yourself.
Stop making accusations about contradictions you can't back up.

"Contradiction": yet another word Magellan doesn't know the meaning of.

Exactly what do you think is 'completed'?
A loss of interfertility, moron. What do you think it is that is being discussed here? Why is it that you cannot follow even the simplest, most basic narratives?

You've always argued about fuzzy boundaries.

I've never argued that they're always fuzzy. Do you think there's any "fuzziness" about humans and horses being different species? Do you think there is even the remotest chance that a human and a horse could interbreed?

Oh, and none of this sort of stuff please - 'Speciation is complete when this species can't interbreed with that species.'

Why not? That is exactly when the process of speciation becomes complete.

Who made you the rule-maker around here? All you do is whine and moan about "rule-making," but then you make all sorts of rules about what sorts of arguments can be made, what kinds of words can be used, and what kinds of concepts are even allowed to be discussed.

"Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible. If you don't want to talk about that process, then why did you start a thread to discuss that process?

Tiggy

February 28th 2011, 03:50 PM

"Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible. If you don't want to talk about that process, then why did you start a thread to discuss that process?

Minor nit here. While the above definition holds true in most cases, it is not true in all. A more precise definition is: "Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which mixing of genetic material no longer naturally occurs, either due to genetic incompatibility or due to other differences (behavioral, territorial, etc.) Lions and tigers are two species but they still can be interbred and produce viable offspring (i.e Ligers). It's just that in the wild, they don't.

- T

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 03:54 PM

Minor nit here. While the above definition holds true in most cases, it is not true in all. A more precise definition is: "Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which mixing of genetic material no longer naturally occurs, either due to genetic incompatibility or due to other differences (behavioral, territorial, etc.) Lions and tigers are two species but they still can be interbred and produce viable offspring (i.e Ligers). It's just that in the wild, they don't.

- T

It's actually not that minor of a nit (and Magellan won't follow any of what's being said anyway). For one thing, the vast majority of organisms on earth (bacteria) don't reproduce sexually anyway, so "interbreeding" doesn't even apply to them as a concept. For another, as you point out, populations between which gene flow is possible (i.e., a mating will produce viable offspring) is often rare to nonexistent. There is no question that wolves and domestic dogs are interfertile (any physiological issues aside), but gene flow between wolves and domestic dogs is nearly zero.

Of course, we're not allowed to use the words "gene flow" or "population" or "species" in any discussion of speciation.

Faid

February 28th 2011, 04:18 PM

That's how I saw it too. Lao Tzu pointed this out as a possibility -

(This is what I understood he meant)

Let's say Factor X is the thing that prevents mating with Brown Beetles.There probably is no single "thing", to do that, unless by "thing" you mean some kind of threshold of accumulated different mutarions. And that's not like a wall- more like a slope (see, I'm using simple analogies for you). And if that is the case, both "Green X" AND Brown beetles have that factor.

Green Beetle X has Factor X. Green Beetle Plain does not have Factor X.Then Green Beetle X cannot mate with Brown beetles, Green Plain can. OK so far.
There have to be several intermediate steps between Brown and Green Beetles.

What we need is Green Beetle X and Green Beetles Plain at some stage living together- interbreeding.Why do we "need" that? Green beetles X could also be isolated, and therefore not share their "X factor" with Green Plain. That may not hinder their possible interbreeding, so they might be able to interbreed when they are reunited. Just saying.

So say first of all some Brown Beetles head off for the mainland. Some Brown Beetles stay on the Island.Why? Brown beetles could have just chosen a new ecological niche on the island (perhaps one that allows them better camouphlage- say, sand close to the beach rather than green bushes), and essentially avoid the other ones (and also remain brown due to the beneficial aspect of the color). But anyway, let's go with your example.

On the mainland -
1. Brown Beetles all turn into Blue Beetles. OK, although that sounds rather weird- Why not a Brownish-Green beetle? Anyway.

2. A pair of Blue Beetles gives birth to a Green Beetle Plain.
3. Green Beetle Plain takes over. Hmm. OK, let's assume that the green color provides better camouflage where the beetles on the mainland live. Or it could be by Genetic Drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift) (see below).

4. A pair of Green Beetles Plain gives birth to Green Beetle X.
5. Eventually we have a group of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X.
6. Something wipes out all Green Beetles Plain.
Well, this could happen, although there's no need to suppose a fundamental inefficiency that led to Green Plain being wiped out... Perhaps something endangered all the population, and a small random sample that survived had a much larger prevalence of factor X (like in a small community). And the factor was led to fixation through further interbreeding. That's what genetic drift is about.

7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetle.OK.

It requires Factor X to have two functions - Inability to breed with Brown Beetles and immunity from whatever it was that wiped-out Green Beetle Plain.That's assuming factor X is an actual trait. If it simply means that Green beetles X have substantially more different genetic changes than Brown ones, then essentially ALL Green beetles Plain will become Green X as the reproductive isolation with the Brown ones continues. So there's no need to postulate this "wiping out" in the first place.

But even if X is an actual trait (say, too different reproductive organs), there is still a chance for the trait to prevail through random genetic drift, as I explained above.

Your scenario might also be theoretically possible- for example, too different reproductive organs might prevent an infection that caused sterility. But it's not a very likely scenario. The scenarios I described above are much more likely, and the first is essentially unavoidable the more reproductive isolation continues.

Mind you - The inability of Green Beetles to interbreed with brown Beetles was a 'What-If?' - it was not part of the assumptions of the model I set up.Well, in that case, your example is not about speciation at all. Green and Brown could just be different interbreeding variations. Which makes the whole discussion moot.

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 04:30 PM

Magellan says, "We've got some green beetles and some brown beetles, which may or may not be able to interbreed. So, did speciation happen?"

I don't know, Magellan. Why don't you tell us?

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 06:59 PM

It's actually not that minor of a nit (and Magellan won't follow any of what's being said anyway). For one thing, the vast majority of organisms on earth (bacteria) don't reproduce sexually anyway, so "interbreeding" doesn't even apply to them as a concept. For another, as you point out, populations between which gene flow is possible (i.e., a mating will produce viable offspring) is often rare to nonexistent. There is no question that wolves and domestic dogs are interfertile (any physiological issues aside), but gene flow between wolves and domestic dogs is nearly zero.

Of course, we're not allowed to use the words "gene flow" or "population" or "species" in any discussion of speciation..
If Gene Flow = 'Mating which produces viable offspring' then there you have an unambiguous replacement for Gene Flow.
So your “For another’ sentence becomes -

'For another, as you point out, populations between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent.'
And just one more baby step -

'For another, as you point out, groups of individuals between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent.'
Permit me to Panel-Beat your post into clear English , free of Evo-Jargon:

For one thing, the vast majority of organisms on earth (bacteria) don't reproduce sexually anyway, so "interbreeding" doesn't even apply to them as a concept.

'For another, as you point out, groups of individuals between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent . There is no question that wolves and domestic dogs are interfertile (any physiological issues aside), but Mating which produces viable offspring between wolves and domestic dogs is nearly zero.
Presto!
See how much clearer and simpler the world becomes without Evo-Jargon?

Magellan

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 08:05 PM

.
If Gene Flow = 'Mating which produces viable offspring' then there you have an unambiguous replacement for Gene Flow.
No you don't. I already explained this to you when I defined "gene flow to you":

Gene Flow

There is "gene flow" within a group of organisms in a single population (as defined above). There is gene flow among members of a single species of fish living in one small lake, meaning over time all of the different alleles for genes can become mixed in that population (beneficial ones will typically go to fixation—meaning they end up in the genome of every member of the population, and deleterious ones go to extinction, meaning they appear in the genome of no members of the population). There is no gene flow between a population of rats of one species in Shenzhen and another population of the same species in Milan.

"Gene flow" ≠ "mating."

Seriously, Magllan, it's like you can't speak English.

So your “For another’ sentence becomes -

'For another, as you point out, populations between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent.'
No. My statement was correct as I made it. It becomes ambiguous as you have rephrased it. You can have "mating" that does not result in viable offspring where there is NO gene flow.

You just don't get the distinction Tiggy and I are making. You can have two populations of the same species, where mating will always produce viable offspring, but between which gene flow is zero because such matings never happen. Just because there is zero gene flow between two populations does not necessarily mean the two populations are different species.

And just one more baby step -

'For another, as you point out, groups of individuals between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent.'
Permit me to Panel-Beat your post into clear English , free of Evo-Jargon:

For one thing, the vast majority of organisms on earth (bacteria) don't reproduce sexually anyway, so "interbreeding" doesn't even apply to them as a concept.

'For another, as you point out, groups of individuals between which Mating which produces viable offspring is possible is often rare to non-existent . There is no question that wolves and domestic dogs are interfertile (any physiological issues aside), but Mating which produces viable offspring between wolves and domestic dogs is nearly zero.
Presto!
See how much clearer and simpler the world becomes without Evo-Jargon?

NO, YOU MORON. NOT CLEARER.

You completely lose the distinction between populations which are different species (because interbreeding does not lead to viable offspring) and between populations where interbreeding is possible but which never happens for reasons that have nothing to do with interfertility.

Gene flow is zero between lions and wolves, because they are different species. Even if their ranges overlapped, there would still be zero gene flow.

Gene flow is zero between lions and tigers not because they are different species, but because their ranges do not overlap.

"Mating" and "gene flow" are not the same thing. Gene flow refers to entire populations. Entire populations don't "mate."

Ambiguity. It's your stock-in-trade, Magellan. You always talk about how everyone should be "precise," but then you try to remove as much precision as possible. So stop whining about "jargon" (there's no way you can possibly say you don't understand what "gene flow" means), and start actually trying to make some sense. If you don't understand English, then what are you doing here?

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 08:06 PM

Meanwhile, Magellan completely avoids any questions about his "simulation of evolution," and can't even tell us whether these "green" beetles can interbreed with "brown" beetles.

magellan004

February 28th 2011, 10:32 PM

You just don't get the distinction Tiggy and I are making. You can have two populations of the same species, where mating will always produce viable offspring, but between which gene flow is zero because such matings never happen. Just because there is zero gene flow between two populations does not necessarily mean the two populations are different species.

You completely lose the distinction between populations which are different species (because interbreeding does not lead to viable offspring) and between populations where interbreeding is possible but which never happens for reasons that have nothing to do with interfertility.

You have totally contradicted what Tiggy said and now you are pretending that you are both saying the same thing about Species and Speciation.

But I want to help you, so, look back at Post 296, Post 297 and Post 302 and report back to me (with quotes) confessing how your Evo-Jargon has mixed you all up.

If your answer is coherent but you can't see the contradiction then just ask and I'll explain it in baby-talk.

Magellan

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 11:11 PM

You have totally contradicted what Tiggy said
Nice try, Magellan. You don't have the slightest idea what either Tiggy or I said and couldn't identify a contradiction between us even if one existed.

He and I said exactly the same thing using different words. Of course, you wouldn't know that because you don't know what words mean.

and now you are pretending that you are both saying the same thing about Species and Speciation.

I'm not "pretending" any such thing. Let's see if Tiggy agrees with me or with you.

But I want to help you,

First, you don't want to help, and second, you couldn't help if you wanted to. You're HELPLESS, Magellan.

so, look back at Post 296, Post 297 and Post 302 and report back to me (with quotes) confessing how your Evo-Jargon has mixed you all up.

No. Instead, why don't YOU look at post 296, 297, and 302 and try to explain to us, if you can, what you think the differences among them are. Which will be pretty impossible for you, since you have no idea what either Tiggy or I are saying and don't know what any of the words mean.

If your answer is coherent but you can't see the contradiction then just ask and I'll explain it in baby-talk.
There is no contradiction. But try to explain what you think it is, using words you understand, which will be infant-talk.

When someone claims they don't know what a "population" is, they're not going to have much credibility when they claim they can detect "contradictions" in statements about gene flow.

But it's especially entertaining given that Tiggy talks about a "minor nit," and you think you've found a "total contradiction.

You never get less idiotic, moron.

Tiggy

February 28th 2011, 11:12 PM

You have totally contradicted what Tiggy said and now you are pretending that you are both saying the same thing about Species and Speciation.

But I want to help you, so, look back at Post 296, Post 297 and Post 302 and report back to me (with quotes) confessing how your Evo-Jargon has mixed you all up.

If your answer is coherent but you can't see the contradiction then just ask and I'll explain it in baby-talk.

Magellan
Er...no Clownshoes. Eric didn't contradict what I said. But it doesn't surprise me at all you'd try to put some dishonest spin on it, given your trolling attention whoring nature.

BTW, no one is interested in your stupid made-up Clown terms. Stay an idiot and go play with yourself if you can't be bothered to learn the proper scientific terms.

- T

ericmurphy

February 28th 2011, 11:20 PM

Once again: for Magellan, if two statements aren't worded identically, then they're "totally contradictory."

I predict the probability that Magellan will actually respond to my challenge to point out the "contradiction," rather than just claim there is one, is zero.

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 12:51 AM

No. Instead, why don't YOU look at post 296, 297, and 302 and try to explain to us, if you can, what you think the differences among them are.

Let's use Group A which splits due to some geographical factor into Group B and Group C. Members of Group A can interbreed and do interbreed.

Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.

Post 211

Two groups of the same species of rat, one living in Shenzhen and the other in Milan, are not a population.

SO a group of rats , (call that group Group A) which can and did interbreed somehow got split into (at least) two groups Group Shenzhen (Group B) and Group Milan (Group C).

1. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?
Same species, so Eric says.

Post 296

Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

2. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

Eric says if for Group B and Group C interbreeding is no longer possible then Group B and Group C have speciated. 'No longer possible' is slightly ambiguos because it strongly implies 'No potential to interbreed' but it could mean 'Cannot interbreed because of distance.'

Post 297

"Speciation" is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which mixing of genetic material no longer naturally occurs, either due to genetic incompatibility or due to other differences (behavioral, territorial, etc.) Lions and tigers are two species but they still can be interbred and produce viable offspring (i.e Ligers). It's just that in the wild, they don't.

3. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

According to Tiggy if Group B and Group C have the ability to interbreed but there is a geographical barrier to interbreeding then Group B and Group C have Speciated.

Group A (Ancestor of Lions and Tigers) --> Split -- > Lions and Tigers - potential to interbreed and different species.

Post 302

You can have two populations of the same species, where mating will always produce viable offspring, but between which gene flow is zero because such matings never happen. Just because there is zero gene flow between two populations does not necessarily mean the two populations are different species.
4. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

According to Eric if Group B and Group C have the ability to interbreed but there is a geographical barrier to interbreeding then Group B and Group C have not necessarily Speciated.

Group A (Ancestor of Lions and Tigers) --> Split -- > Lions and Tigers - potential to interbreed and different species or same species?

Again , I ask, why use the Evo-Jargon when it is confusing you and other Evo-Experts?

Here's the simple solution-

Let's say in Group A there is interbreeding.
Group A splits into different geographic locations.
A. Group B and Group C do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed.
How can we say that in a meaningful way?
This is how - Group B and Group C do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed.'

B. Group B and Group C cannot interbreed because of the physical distance but they have the capacity to interbreed and could interbreed if they were brought together.
How can we say that in a meaningful way?
This is how - Group B and Group C cannot interbreed because of the physical distance but they have the capacity to interbreed and could interbreed if they were brought together.'

64816 64817648186481964820

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:17 AM

Now comes a long, incomprehensible babble from Magellan where he tries to find daylight between Tiggy's statements and mine:

Let's use Group A which splits due to some geographical factor into Group B and Group C. Members of Group A can interbreed and do interbreed.

Incoherency the first:

There is no group A. There are groups B and C. Group A has split into groups B and C. Already Magellan is hopelessly lost.

Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.

Post 211

SO a group of rats , (call that group Group A) which can and did interbreed somehow got split into (at least) two groups Group Shenzhen (Group B) and Group Milan (Group C).

1. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?
Same species, so Eric says.

They're different populations. They're not different species. However, there is no gene flow between B and C.

Which will mean exactly nothing to Magellan, because he can't read English.

Post 296

2. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

So far, yes. They can potentially interbreed because they're the same species. They do NOT interbreed because they are geographically separated.

Which I may as well say in Greek for all the comprehension Magellan will have.

Eric says if for Group B and Group C interbreeding is no longer possible then Group B and Group C have speciated. 'No longer possible' is slightly ambiguos because it strongly implies 'No potential to interbreed' but it could mean 'Cannot interbreed because of distance.'

That's exactly why the terms "population" and "gene flow" have meaning, moron. The two are the same species if they can still potentially interbreed—like lions and tigers. They are different populations because there is no gene flow between them.

Which, again, will mean absolutely nothing to Magellan, because he cannot understand the meaning of words.

Post 297

3. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

Who knows, Magellan? It's your hypothetical. If they are the same species, they can potentially interbreed regardless of whether or not they are the same population. If they cannot interbreed then they are different species.

That's what the words mean, Magellan. But you don't understand that even after it's been repeatedly explained to you.

According to Tiggy if Group B and Group C have the ability to interbreed but there is a geographical barrier to interbreeding then Group B and Group C have Speciated.

This is the "fuzziness" about species you can't decide if it exists or not. Lions and tigers are normally categorized as different species even though they can interbreed (but do not in the wild because their territories do not overlap). Technically they are different morphotypes of the same species specifically because they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. However, there are the beginnings of incompatibilities between the two, and hybrids definitely differ from either parent.

Again, Magellan falls into the same trap he repeatedly sets for himself.

Every time you point to ambiguities or "fuzziness" in conspecificity, you confirm a prediction of evolutionary theory and drive a stake through the heart of creationism

By the BSC, lions and tigers are the same species. By other definitions they are not.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF AMBIGUITY EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS.

To claim that because I'm using a slightly different definition of the term "species" from the one Tiggy is using that we're therefore "totally contradicting each other" is just more utter, comical stupidity from Clown-boy.

Group A (Ancestor of Lions and Tigers) --> Split -- > Lions and Tigers - potential to interbreed and different species.

They are in the process of speciating, moron. How many times must it be explained to you that speciation is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of generations. That we see instances of partial interfertility like lions and tigers is A PREDICTION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Post 302

4. Group A --> split --> Group B and Group C.
Can Group B and Group C potentially interbreed?

Why do you keep asking this, Magellan? What is group A? What is group B? What is group C?

Do you have any idea how you would test whether B and C can interbreed? Or is that simply beyond your ability?

According to Eric if Group B and Group C have the ability to interbreed but there is a geographical barrier to interbreeding then Group B and Group C have not necessarily Speciated.

Yes. Has Tiggy disagreed with this? If so, where did he do so? Does he ever claim that two populations which do not interbreed are definitely NOT the same species, even if they're interfertile?

Group A (Ancestor of Lions and Tigers) --> Split -- > Lions and Tigers - potential to interbreed and different species or same species?

It depends on the definition you use.

Are they the same "kind," Magellan? If so, why? If not, why not?

Again , I ask, why use the Evo-Jargon when it is confusing you and other Evo-Experts?

Neither Tiggy nor I are "confused," idiot. We are both aware of different meanings of the term "species" in different contexts.

What do you prefer we use instead of "species," Magellan? Do you have some sort of baby-talk term you like better? Maybe we should just call both lions and tigers "kitty-kats"?

Here's the simple solution-

Let's say in Group A there is interbreeding.
Group A splits into different geographic locations.
A. Group B and Group C do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed.
How can we say that in a meaningful way?
We can say they are definitely not conspecific.

This is how - Group B and Group C do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed.'

So we don't call lions a "species." We call them a "do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed."

With what, moron? Do they interbreed with other lions? Do they interbreed with tigers? How about with leopards?

B. Group B and Group C cannot interbreed because of the physical distance but they have the capacity to interbreed and could interbreed if they were brought together.
How can we say that in a meaningful way?
This is how - Group B and Group C cannot interbreed because of the physical distance but they have the capacity to interbreed and could interbreed if they were brought together.'

In other words, instead of using nice, short words, let's use entire sentences. Heck, let's use entire paragraphs.

Instead of whining about how you don't understand any of the words used in biology, why don't you bother to learn what they mean?

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:21 AM

Tell you what, moron:

From now one, whenever you want to talk about, for example, a "species" of turtle, instead say "a do not interbreed and even if they were brought together with [list every other type of organism in existence] could not interbreed turtle."

That should keep you busy.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:25 AM

And, of course, Magellan, being the dishonest weasel that he is, never even mentioned by response to Tiggy's post:

It's actually not that minor of a nit (and Magellan won't follow any of what's being said anyway). For one thing, the vast majority of organisms on earth (bacteria) don't reproduce sexually anyway, so "interbreeding" doesn't even apply to them as a concept. For another, as you point out, populations between which gene flow is possible (i.e., a mating will produce viable offspring) is often rare to nonexistent. There is no question that wolves and domestic dogs are interfertile (any physiological issues aside), but gene flow between wolves and domestic dogs is nearly zero.

Of course, we're not allowed to use the words "gene flow" or "population" or "species" in any discussion of speciation.

And before you bleat, "I did too mention it," Magellan, I will point out that you mentioned in an entirely different context, where you said we should do away with the term "gene flow."

If we actually took your advice and stopped using every word that has meaning in an evolutionary context, we'd have to write entire books just to say, "Lions and tigers are often referred to as different species, even though they can potentially interbreed but do not in nature, and as a result there is no gene flow between populations of lions and populations of tigers."

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:33 AM

In fact, let's try it out. We can replace:

"Lions and tigers are often referred to as different species, even though they can potentially interbreed but do not in nature, and as a result there is no gene flow between populations of lions and populations of tigers."

with

"Lions and tigers are often referred to as different do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed, even though they can potentially interbreed but do not in nature, and as a result there is no mating between populations of lions and populations of tigers."

Presto! Much better.

Of course, there's a little TINY BIT of ambiguity with the "can interbreed but do not, and as a result there is no mating."

Sure. That makes perfect sense.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 02:00 AM

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/NoWords.png

That's about the size of it.

phaedrus

March 1st 2011, 03:28 AM

Really, this is about the size of it:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5d3vQqOp-6zD3TASWqvgY4s78IR1VSIOTPrl5br--Ja4NSNqZ8g

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 03:58 AM

Magellan says, "Can you help get the groceries out of the wheeled conveyance powered by a gasoline engine that is typically used to transport humans and their belongings from place to place and is capable of achieving and maintaining highway speeds for prolonged periods of time?"

The rest of us would say, "Can you help get the groceries out of the car?"

Faid

March 1st 2011, 07:07 AM

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 08:52 AM

And the Jargon Joke continues -

This is the "fuzziness" about species you can't decide if it exists or not. Lions and tigers are normally categorized as different species even though they can interbreed (but do not in the wild because their territories do not overlap). Technically they are different morphotypes of the same species specifically because they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. However, there are the beginnings of incompatibilities between the two, and hybrids definitely differ from either parent.

By the BSC lions and tigers are the same species. By other definitions they are not.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF AMBIGUITY EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS.
That's too beautiful. Evolutionary theory predicts that there will be different definitions of words.

64821

It depends on the definition you use.

Neither Tiggy nor I are "confused," idiot. We are both aware of different meanings of the term "species" in different contexts.
It just keeps coming and coming. Too good. I'm outclassed.

So we don't call lions a "species." We call them a "do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed."
Well you could try dropping labels and just saying what you mean.

Instead of whining about how you don't understand any of the words used in biology, why don't you bother to learn what they mean?

I don't need to learn - you taught me all I need to know about what 'Species' really means -

'It sort of means almost , depending on the context, sort of not interbreeding but not quite because it could mean unable to interbreed but not always because we know it really means , depending on the definition being a sub-species of a morphophotype, a kind of different species to the one we thought we were talking about .'

And as long as You know what Species means - to heck with anyone else.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 11:38 AM

And the Jargon Joke continues -

That's too beautiful. Evolutionary theory predicts that there will be different definitions of words.

You're too stupid for words, Magellan.

Evolutionary theory predicts that "species" will be a fuzzy concept. That's because if evolutionary theory is correct, we should see populations which are fully interfertile, through gradually-decreasing levels of interfertility, to complete reproductive isolation. We should also see populations which can in theory interbreed but do not because of geographic separation, different breeding season, different circadian rhythm, etc.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about word definitions, moron. Fuzzy concepts will be difficult to define.

And gee, moron, like there's something weird about words having different definitions. Like:

Purple Rose of Cairo
The sun rose this morning

It just keeps coming and coming. Too good. I'm outclassed.

Outwitted, outsmarted, outmaneuvered. Not that there's anything to be proud about in outsmarting you, Magellan. But it really is amazing to see someone with such aggressive intellectual masochism who is willing to come here day after day, week after week, month after month, to be publicly humiliated.

Well you could try dropping labels and just saying what you mean.

I tried that. This is what I got:

"Lions and tigers are often referred to as different do not interbreed and even if they were brought together they could not interbreed, even though they can potentially interbreed but do not in nature, and as a result there is no mating between populations of lions and populations of tigers."

Everyone else here has zero difficulty understanding what I'm saying. You're tripping over words like "population," "gene flow," etc.

I don't need to learn - you taught me all I need to know about what 'Species' really means -

'It sort of means almost , depending on the context, sort of not interbreeding but not quite because it could mean unable to interbreed but not always because we know it really means , depending on the definition being a sub-species of a morphophotype, a kind of different species to the one we thought we were talking about .'

And as long as You know what Species means - to heck with anyone else.

To heck with you, moron. No one else seems to have the slightest problem with my use of the word species. That you're unwilling to do a little research and, you know, look up what the word means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), is your problem.

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

And if you enjoy being publicly humiliated on a daily basis, well, I'm more than happy to help you with that.

In the meantime, it looks like you've given up on your "simulation of evolution" with your beetles, since you don't understand any of the words used to describe evolutionary processes. I wonder what your next idiot attempt at discussing science will be.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 11:41 AM

rogue06

March 1st 2011, 11:44 AM

I'm outclassed
No truer words.

Sparko

March 1st 2011, 11:51 AM

You'd think I was the only person using these words. Words like "species," "population," "gene flow," "radiation," interfertile," are in daily if not hourly use in papers, articles, and books discussing biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular, to say nothing of terms like "symplesiomorphy," "transformation series," "canalization," "outgroup," etc.

Perhaps if you dumbed down your posts and used words like "thingamabob" and "whoosiwhat" then Magellan could understand you better.

Like, When the brown thingies became green whatchamacallits, and they could no longer cha-cha with the brown whatzits, then they are considered a different whoosiwhat.

Tiggy

March 1st 2011, 11:54 AM

Perhaps if you dumbed down your posts and used words like "thingamabob" and "whoosiwhat" then Magellan could understand you better.

Like, When the brown thingies became green whatchamacallits, and they could no longer cha-cha with the brown whatzits, then they are considered a different whoosiwhat.

I like the idea that anyone can make up their own words at any time, i.e.

"Man, that bean burrito I had for lunch is killing me! I need to go take a big Clownshoes. I'll probably need a whole roll to wipe my magellan004."

:teeth:

- T

rogue06

March 1st 2011, 12:04 PM

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 12:04 PM

Perhaps if you dumbed down your posts and used words like "thingamabob" and "whoosiwhat" then Magellan could understand you better.

Like, When the brown thingies became green whatchamacallits, and they could no longer cha-cha with the brown whatzits, then they are considered a different whoosiwhat.

Ah you are still at it.
Did you see my question to you from Post 292?

Post 290

now you are just changing the parameters of your scenario. You said:
1. A brown beetle gave birth to a green beetle.
Post 292

Please give the post where I said that.
I'd appreciate an answer thanks.

Magellan

Sparko

March 1st 2011, 12:11 PM

Ah you are still at it.
Did you see my question to you from Post 292?

Post 290

Post 292

I'd appreciate an answer thanks.

Magellan

When you jiggered the thingamwhoozibob.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 12:16 PM

Perhaps if you dumbed down your posts and used words like "thingamabob" and "whoosiwhat" then Magellan could understand you better.

Or, "horsey things."

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 12:18 PM

Ah you are still at it.
What's amazing, Magellan, is that you are still at it. I've never seen anyone get the crap kicked out him intellectually for a solid year like this and just keep coming back for more.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 12:21 PM

So where are you with your "simulation," Magellan? You know, the one that was going to—how did you put it?—"walk us through a hypothetical simulation of evolution"?

What do we have so far?

We've got some beetles. We don't know how many.
They live somewhere; we're not exactly sure where.
Some of them are brown, and some of them are green. We don't know anything else about them other than that some are brown and some are green.
The brown and green varieties may, or may not, be able to interbreed.

What does this teach us about evolution, again?

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 12:42 PM

In the meantime, it looks like you've given up on your "simulation of evolution" with your beetles, since you don't understand any of the words used to describe evolutionary processes. I wonder what your next idiot attempt at discussing science will be.

I haven't given up on The Beetles.
I have to deal with you blabbering and constantly begging the question , as you did just there.
How do you know we are 'describing an evolutionary process' when we are trying to determine what took place?

We are meant to be examining what took place , in various scenarios , to determine if it accords with what evolution says must have occurred.

But you can't even see that basing a discussion -about whether there was 'speciation' - on a presumed relationship between chimps and people is Begging The Question. And in those circumstances you are hardly going to have the wits to determine whether evolutionary processes were at all possible.

As I said, I understand completely why you cling to your beloved Evo-Jargon. If you actually addressed the underlying issues you would freak out . Take this as an example -

So say first of all some Brown Beetles head off for the mainland. Some Brown Beetles stay on the Island.
On the mainland -
1. Brown Beetles all turn into Blue Beetles.
2. A pair of Blue Beetles gives birth to a Green Beetle Plain.
3. Green Beetle Plain takes over.
4. A pair of Green Beetles Plain gives birth to Green Beetle X.
5. Eventually we have a group of Green Beetles Plain and Green Beetles X.
6. Something wipes out all Green Beetles Plain.
7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetle.

Then you come up with this clanger -Post 288

Your problem, that you cannot seem to get around, is that you think speciation happens in a single generation. It doesn't. It's a gradual process occurring over hundreds of thousands to millions of generations.

Please tell me - Where in my quote just above is there anything to give the slightest impression that 'This group can't interbreed with that group' happened in a single generation?

And how on Earth did you come up with this nonsense? Post 288

Green beetles, whether they're X or not, can always interbreed.

Your whole Post 288 is one litany of misunderstanding, distortion and buffoonery. Here you are 'at it' again with your labels-

7. The mainland group consists entirely of Green Beetle X's.
8. Green Beetles X return to the Island and cannot mate with Brown Beetles

That's geographic isolation followed by genetic drift followed by an overlap of range.
Who cares what you call it? Does it become something different because you label it? Does it make my outline wrong because you can use a label?

You let your mouth run away with you. You don't always have to say something to feel big, surely?

Here's a tip - look at the underlying principles. Your Evo-Speak will not help you analyse processes. It fogs your mind.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:36 PM

I haven't given up on The Beetles.

So, what, all this static and blabber about weird, unknowable jargon like "species" and "population" was something other than just a distraction from the fact that you've made exactly zero progress on your "simulation" in twenty-two pages and 329 posts?

I have to deal with you blabbering and constantly begging the question , as you did just there.
"Blabbering" to you is "using well-understood words with well-defined meanings" to everyone else. And you have yet to identify any question-begging from me. As it happens, your OWN "SIMULATION" assumed speciation. If anyone's doing any question-begging, it's YOU.

How do you know we are 'describing an evolutionary process' when we are trying to determine what took place?

What does it say in your OP, Magellan? It says:

I would like to introduce you to The Beetles. These little guys are going to walk us through a hypothetical simulation of evolution.

Are you, as usual, unclear on what even you yourself are talking about?

We are meant to be examining what took place , in various scenarios , to determine if it accords with what evolution says must have occurred.

Well, since you can't tell us what happened in your own stupid "simulation," beyond "there are some beetles, somewhere, and some of them are different colors from the other ones," there really isn't much to examine, is there? Far be it from you to tell us what even supposedly happened in your own "simulation," but you think we're supposed to be able to tell you what happened.

But you can't even see that basing a discussion -about whether there was 'speciation' - on a presumed relationship between chimps and people is Begging The Question.

Gee, Magellan; I thought we were talking about beetles. Where did humans and chimps come into the conversation? I brought up humans and chimps in the context of eye color to explain how cladistic methods allow us to polarize a transformation series (and before you start whimpering and crying, I could not possibly care less if you have no idea what that means). How that is "begging" any question about what's going on with your beetles is anyone's guess.

And in those circumstances you are hardly going to have the wits to determine whether evolutionary processes were at all possible.

I already know they're possible, Magellan, because I know what they are. I've explained to you how speciation happens. Instead of trying to find some reason why my explanation is unworkable, implausible, or impossible, you whined and cried about how you didn't understand what terms like "population" or "gene flow" mean, even after I defined them for you.

As I said, I understand completely why you cling to your beloved Evo-Jargon. If you actually addressed the underlying issues you would freak out . Take this as an example -

I use words with well-understood meanings so normal people understand what I'm saying and so I don't spend entire paragraphs when a single word would do. Any moron who thinks words like "species" or "population" are impenetrable jargon, even after they've been defined for you in-thread, is clearly incapable of carrying on a conversation.

Which is why I'm not really having a conversation with you. I'm just inducing you to humiliate yourself publicly, over and over again.

Then you come up with this clanger -Post 288

Your problem, that you cannot seem to get around, is that you think speciation happens in a single generation. It doesn't. It's a gradual process occurring over hundreds of thousands to millions of generations.

Right. That's a completely unexceptional statement of fact. To you, its meaning is entirely meaningless. That's because you're about as close to being actually developmentally disabled as any creationist I have ever had the dubious pleasure of interacting with.

And of course you can't actually tell me what's wrong with that statement or what is unclear about it.

Please tell me - Where in my quote just above is there anything to give the slightest impression that 'This group can't interbreed with that group' happened in a single generation?

You say it all the time, Magellan. You think there must be some time when a green beetle appears that cannot mate with any brown beetles in a single generation. If you think it's true that speciation happens over hundreds of thousands of generations, and is a gradual process, then why do you keep insisting there must be a time when a child is a different species from its parents?

And how on Earth did you come up with this nonsense? Post 288

Green beetles, whether they're X or not, can always interbreed.

Because I know something you don't: how speciation works.

Your whole Post 288 is one litany of misunderstanding, distortion and buffoonery.
Your entire output on this forum is one big long litany of misunderstanding, distortion, and buffoonery, Magellan. It's just a little interesting that you are the one who has a universal reputation here for being an idiot, not me. The only two people here who seem to think that of me are you and your comrade-in-stupidity, Theostudent.

And frankly, coming from you two, that's something of a compliment.

Here you are 'at it' again with your labels-

Right. "Geographic isolation" is some sort of impenetrable technical jargon. "Genetic drift" is some sort of impenetrable technical jargon.

Every time you whine and cry about how you can't understand words like this, it just makes you look more and more like an idiot.

If you want to discuss evolutionary theory, then LEARN WHAT SOME OF THE WORDS MEAN.

Let's talk about carpentry. Except you can't use the words "wood," "saw," "nail," "glue," "sand," or "hammer," because all of those words are impenetrable technical jargon.

Who cares what you call it?

You do, apparently. All you ever do is whine and cry about what I call it. You never actually address my arguments. You never even evidence any understanding of my arguments. ALL YOU EVER DO is whine and cry about how I use big words, that are too hard, and it hurts your brain to have to look up the long words.

Does it become something different because you label it?

I'm not using "labels." I'm using words. Like "population." Now THAT'S a tough one. Four syllables. It must take you ALL DAY just to sound it out!

Does it make my outline wrong because you can use a label?

Your "outline" isn't even wrong, moron. You can't tell us how many beetles there are. You can't tell us what differences there are among them, other than color. All you can tell us there are some beetles, they live somewhere, and they're different colors.

And from that, you think you can teach us something about evolution.

You let your mouth run away with you. You don't always have to say something to feel big, surely?

Nope. I just have to say things that make you say really, really idiotic things that make creationism look exactly like the comical joke it is.

Here's a tip - look at the underlying principles. Your Evo-Speak will not help you analyse processes. It fogs your mind.

Magellan, I get how speciation happens. You do not. I understand the underlying principles. You do not. I know what the words mean. You do not.

I know what I'm talking about.

You do not.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 01:51 PM

Meanwhile, Magellan, when you get over your tears and tantrums over my "labels," maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this model of speciation, and why it wouldn't work in the real world:

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.

Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.

Or, maybe I should translate it into baby-talk so you can understand it:

We've got a bunch of bugs: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next bunch of years, climate change allows that bunch of bugs to slowly go further north, until the bunch's place where they live covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The bunch of bugs spreads out enough so that the chances of a bug in South Africa gettin' it on with a bug in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between those two different bunches of bugs (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zilch.

Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between the two bunches. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the two bunches of bugs so that gettin' it on becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading out of both bunches of bugs result in where they live bein' the same place.

Have I gotten rid of all the big scary words, Magellan? Or is "essentially" impenetrable technical jargon? What about "inherited"? Can I use that word, or is that also impenetrable technical jargon? What about "stuff"? Does that pass the Magellan-comprehension test?

Faid

March 1st 2011, 01:59 PM

Guess what, Mags, words and terms actually do have different meanings, depending on context.

For example:

When an internet poster tries to argue against evolution, and his pathetic, nearly incomprehensible blabber manages to unite "evolutionists" and "YECs" alike against him, then, are they doing something right, or something wrong?

Depends on what they are.

If they are just trolls looking for attention, they're doing it right.

If they are Dunning-Kruger Internet Wiseguys, actually trying to defend their position and win an argument, they're doing it VERY wrong.

What are you, Mags?

Sparko

March 1st 2011, 02:03 PM

I think if magellan004 wants to be a modern day Luddite, he should go all the way and reject all science and technology and burn his PC at the stake. That would be best for all of us.

lao tzu

March 1st 2011, 02:22 PM

What's amazing, Magellan, is that you are still at it. I've never seen anyone get the crap kicked out him intellectually for a solid year like this and just keep coming back for more.

Dave Hawkins.
Supersport.
Jorge.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 03:16 PM

Okay, so I exaggerated a bit. I've seen very few people get the crap kicked out of them intellectually for a solid year like this.

Supersport doesn't count, though. He's never been able to sustain his particular brand of stupidity on one forum for a solid year.

Sparko

March 1st 2011, 03:54 PM

don't forget Yo Lunch. You ain't sticking US with all of the idiots.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 04:07 PM

Magellan's campaign is to remove all words from discourse, because they're "labels," and replace them with their definitions. For example, one wouldn't talk about going to the "supermarket" to buy "bread" to have with "dinner." You would instead say:

"Honey, can you go to the large self-service store selling foods and household goods and pick up some food made of flour, water, and yeast or another leavening agent, mixed together and baked that we can have with our main meal of the day, taken either around midday or in the evening?"

Avoiding using "labels" makes our speech much clearer and, as an added bonus, much more succinct. I mean, much more briefly and clearly expressed.

rogue06

March 1st 2011, 04:27 PM

"Honey, can you go to the large self-service store selling foods and household goods and pick up some food made of flour, water, and yeast or another leavening agent, mixed together and baked that we can have with our main meal of the day, taken either around midday or in the evening?"
You know this is starting to remind me of the way Beldar and Prymaat Conehead used to talk.

http://www.goerieblogs.com/lifestyle/hertimes/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/coneheads_S.jpg

Wait! You don't suppose that m004 is also... from France?

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 05:17 PM

When you jiggered the thingamwhoozibob.

So you misrepresented me.
You do not understand what is being talked about. You thought you could almost follow it. It's safer now to go back to being led around.

That is an accurate representation of you.

Magellan

Sparko

March 1st 2011, 05:20 PM

So you misrepresented me.
You do not understand what is being talked about. You thought you could almost follow it. It's safer now to go back to being led around.

That is an accurate representation of you.

Magellan

stop using labels and idiot-speak!

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 05:25 PM

So you misrepresented me.
Nope. He mocked you, in a way that is dead-accurate.

You do not understand what is being talked about.
Magellan, get it through your cement-like cranium: EVERYONE here has a better understanding of what is being talked about than you do. Seriously: anyone who doesn't know (or can't find out) what terms like "population" or "geographic isolation" mean is in no position to be criticizing anyone else's comprehension.

You thought you could almost follow it. It's safer now to go back to being led around.

That is an accurate representation of you

Magellan, when you object to the use of terms like "population," you open yourself up to mockery. If you don't like it, try not to deserve it so thoroughly.

rogue06

March 1st 2011, 07:35 PM

So you misrepresented me.
I thought you didn't like labels.

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 08:26 PM

I thought you didn't like labels.

Why would you think that?

I don't like labels being used to avoid facing up to the matter at hand. Perhaps I was not clear about what Sparko did?

If you do not understand 'misrepresent' that's fine. I am happy to explain what Sparko did.

Magellan.

phaedrus

March 1st 2011, 08:32 PM

Why would you think that?

I don't like labels being used to avoid facing up to the matter at hand. Perhaps I was not clear about what Sparko did?

If you do not understand 'misrepresent' that's fine. I am happy to explain what Sparko did.

Magellan.

What exactly do you mean by 'explain'? Stop using your crazy jargon talk.And BTW, did you know the word 'label' is a label?

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 08:35 PM

Why would you think that?

I don't like labels being used to avoid facing up to the matter at hand. Perhaps I was not clear about what Sparko did?

Speaking of avoiding "facing up to the matter and hand," Magellan, perhaps you'd like to "face up to" this:

Meanwhile, Magellan, when you get over your tears and tantrums over my "labels," maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this model of speciation, and why it wouldn't work in the real world:

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.

Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.

Or, maybe I should translate it into baby-talk so you can understand it:

We've got a bunch of bugs: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next bunch of years, climate change allows that bunch of bugs to slowly go further north, until the bunch's place where they live covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The bunch of bugs spreads out enough so that the chances of a bug in South Africa gettin' it on with a bug in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between those two different bunches of bugs (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zilch.

Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between the two bunches. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the two bunches of bugs so that gettin' it on becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading out of both bunches of bugs result in where they live bein' the same place.

Have I gotten rid of all the big scary words, Magellan? Or is "essentially" impenetrable technical jargon? What about "inherited"? Can I use that word, or is that also impenetrable technical jargon? What about "stuff"? Does that pass the Magellan-comprehension test?

If you do not understand 'misrepresent' that's fine.

The guy who doesn't understand what "population" means wants to help others with their vocabulary.

I am happy to explain what Sparko did.

Whenever Magellan says he's "happy to explain" something, it means he has absolutely no idea what he meant by what he said. Because if he did know, he'd just explain it, instead of just offering to explain it.

Tiggy

March 1st 2011, 08:50 PM

Why would you think that?

I don't like labels being used to avoid facing up to the matter at hand.

Magellan.

Then why do you keep insisting on using your own made-up Clown labels for processes that already have scientific names? Looks like a cowardly Clownshoes diversion tactic from here.

- T

phaedrus

March 1st 2011, 09:00 PM

This whole technical label phobia is bizarre. When you teach a subject, one of your jobs is to introduce terminology and define it. When I teach Chemistry I teach the meanings of mole, Avagadro's number, atomic weight etc. When I teach physics I define force, mass, inertia, acceleration etc. When I teach maths I define operation, quadratic equation, derivative etc. We do this so that we can converse about a specialised field with understanding and precision. 'Ordinary' language is simply not precise enough. If I had to explain from first principles how the derivative of a function is the slope of a tangent to its curve every time I talked about it, I'd go nuts. (I actually tried this in the thread where Magellan was disproving Einstein and I nearly DID go nuts).

In 30 years of teaching I've run across the gamut of humanity. I've had students who couldn't understand stuff because concepts were foreign to them. I've had students who couldn't understand stuff because they couldn't be bothered trying. All fair enough. I've never had a student stop me in a lesson and say 'You can't use that word.' (except for those few times I got REALLY angry.) I've had them say 'What does that word mean?' and I explain it. 99 times out of a hundred they say 'Oh, I get it now' If they say 'I still don't get it', I explain it in other words. Eventually, if the spirit is willing they understand the terms. I've had science classes made up entirely of students with learning difficulties. We still got to a point where we could discuss science issues using to right terminology.

Never, never have I had anyone tell me that certain scientific words are bad and not allowed in the discussion of the scientific issue for which they were defined.

If you are unwilling to learn the terminology and methodology of a subject that's fine with me but you forfeit the right to discuss it.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnSx_vdb1NzV71d1jXA947yc1dpEKnuC5lYU1hNhfgIe6PNCYg

rogue06

March 1st 2011, 09:09 PM

This whole technical label phobia is bizarre.
Not really. It enables m004 and his ilk to be able to make up there own definitions for various words and phrases. And that allows him to construct strawman after strawman.

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 10:06 PM

Magellan hates and fears science and scientists. Anything that exacerbates that hate and fear, such as the use of specialized terminology, makes him lash out.

It's really as simple as that.

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 11:06 PM

magellan004

March 1st 2011, 11:16 PM

This is a reply to Eric -
I was about to point out the many flaws in your reasoning in Post 329 then I saw this from Post 331. It gives me great heart-
Version 1.

’ maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this model of speciation, and why it wouldn't work in the real world:

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.
Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.
Version 2.

’
We've got a bunch of bugs: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next bunch of years, climate change allows that bunch of bugs to slowly go further north, until the bunch's place where they live covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The bunch of bugs spreads out enough so that the chances of a bug in South Africa gettin' it on with a bug in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between those two different bunches of bugs (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zilch.
Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between the two bunches. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the two bunches of bugs so that gettin' it on becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading out of both bunches of bugs result in where they live bein' the same place.

Have I gotten rid of all the big scary words, Magellan? Or is "essentially" impenetrable technical jargon? What about "inherited"? Can I use that word, or is that also impenetrable technical jargon? What about "stuff"? Does that pass the Magellan-comprehension test?
So you are taking some of what I say on-board. That's excellent. We can move-forward, as they say.
Version 2. Is far superior. You did get rid of the useless labels. Well done. There are some terms that we need to look at and I’ll mention them in a minute.
So let’s clean Version 2. up a bit -

Version 3. Let’s call this ‘The Nitty-Gritty Version’.

’ We've got a group of Beetles: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over a number of years, climate change allows that group of Beetles to slowly go further north, until those original Beetles’ descendants are located all over Africa south of the Sahara desert. The Beetles have spread out so far that the chances of a Beetle in South Africa mating with a Beetle in, say, Cameroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon drops to zilch.
Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon so that mating becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading of the descendants of the Beetles in South Africa and descendants of the Beetles in Cameroon results in some of the later descendants living in the original Beetle’s location – the Southern tip of Africa.
What issues need examining?
1. ‘Inherited stuff’. If we agree that ‘Inherited Stuff’ is features, properties, information, or other things that are, and can only be, passed on or generated through two parents having children then I am happy with the term ‘Inherited stuff’. If however you think ‘Inherited Stuff’ means something different then we need to sort that out.
2. ‘Inherited Stuff moving ‘. If we agree that the only way for ‘Inherited stuff ‘ to move is by individual Beetles to move/be moved then I am happy with ‘Inherited Stuff moving.’ If you know of some other way for Inherited Stuff to move then we need to go over that.
3. ‘changes of inherited stuff results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon so that mating becomes essentially impossible.’ We need to examine how that (many changes leading to no mating) would be possible. I wouldn’t assume that to be so because that would be assuming one of the issues that is in contention.
But if we do assume it is possible in a A What-If? context then I have no problem with your model because it differs in no material aspects to my model.

And if you are happy with all of that then I am happy to use your model if you prefer.

Magellan

Tiggy

March 1st 2011, 11:24 PM

We've heard about your ruthless teaching practices before - where you seek to hand down the law to students who are not able to question your tactics.

Sorry Clownshoes, but before anyone can do teaching there must be someone willing to learn. That certainly isn't you, who has run screaming from every honest attempt to enlighten your willful ignorance

It's a bit like a headmaster belting his students and afterwards asking 'There, now you understand?'

In this case it's more like the class clown gets rightly reprimanded for his disruptive juvenile behavior. So cry us a river Clownshoes, you trolling attention whore.

- T

ericmurphy

March 1st 2011, 11:41 PM

This is a reply to Eric -
I was about to point out the many flaws in your reasoning in Post 329
Except that of course you couldn't find or articulate any. Well, especially since post 329 is your post, not mine.

then I saw this from Post 331. It gives me great heart-
Version 1.

’ maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this model of speciation, and why it wouldn't work in the real world:

We've got a population of beetles: 1,000,000 beetles. Initially, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next 100,000 years, climate change allows that species of beetle to slowly radiate further north, until the specie's range covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The population becomes dispersed enough so that the chances of a beetle in South Africa mating with a beetle in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zero. Therefore, the gene flow between those two subpopulations (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zero.
Wait another half million years with essentially no gene flow between the two subpopulations. Genetic drift over half a million years results in enough genetic difference between the two subpopulations so that interbreeding becomes essentially impossible. Further radiations of both species result in territory overlap.
Version 2.

’
We've got a bunch of bugs: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over the next bunch of years, climate change allows that bunch of bugs to slowly go further north, until the bunch's place where they live covers all of Africa south of the Sahara desert. The bunch of bugs spreads out enough so that the chances of a bug in South Africa gettin' it on with a bug in, say, Camaroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between those two different bunches of bugs (one in South Africa and one in Camaroon) drops to zilch.
Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between the two bunches. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the two bunches of bugs so that gettin' it on becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading out of both bunches of bugs result in where they live bein' the same place.

So you are taking some of what I say on-board. That's excellent. We can move-forward, as they say.
No I'm not, moron. I'm mocking you. Anyone who prefers to use "changes in inherited stuff" rather than "genetic drift" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "gettin' it on" to "interbreeding" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "bunch of" to "species" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "where they live bein' the same place" to "territory overlap" is an idiot.

Shall I continue, or is my point sufficiently clear?

Version 2. Is far superior.

They're identical, moron. Both passages describe exactly the same scenario. That you think one is different from another is just a further demonstration of your breathtaking stupidity.

You did get rid of the useless labels. Well done.

I used baby talk instead of grown-up talk. What can we infer from your preference for the baby-talk, moron?

There are some terms that we need to look at and I’ll mention them in a minute.
So let’s clean Version 2. up a bit -

Version 3. Let’s call this ‘The Nitty-Gritty Version’.

’ We've got a group of Beetles: zillions of them. At first, they are all confined to the southern tip of Africa. But over a number of years, climate change allows that group of Beetles to slowly go further north, until those original Beetles’ descendants are located all over Africa south of the Sahara desert. The Beetles have spread out so far that the chances of a Beetle in South Africa mating with a Beetle in, say, Cameroon, is essentially zilch. Therefore, the amount of inherited stuff moving between Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon drops to zilch.
Wait another really long time with essentially no inherited stuff moving between Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon. Different changes of inherited stuff over that really long time results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon so that mating becomes essentially impossible. Further spreading of the descendants of the Beetles in South Africa and descendants of the Beetles in Cameroon results in some of the later descendants living in the original Beetle’s location – the Southern tip of Africa.
What issues need examining?
1. ‘Inherited stuff’. If we agree that ‘Inherited Stuff’ is features, properties, information, or other things that are, and can only be, passed on or generated through two parents having children then I am happy with the term ‘Inherited stuff’. If however you think ‘Inherited Stuff’ means something different then we need to sort that out.

What you prefer to call "inherited stuff," anyone who isn't a complete and utter moron refers to as "genes." That you think "inherited stuff" is somehow superior to "genes" just demonstrates your breathtaking stupidity.

2. ‘Inherited Stuff moving ‘. If we agree that the only way for ‘Inherited stuff ‘ to move is by individual Beetles to move/be moved then I am happy with ‘Inherited Stuff moving.’ If you know of some other way for Inherited Stuff to move then we need to go over that.
The phase "inherited stuff moving has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. God you're a moron. If you had the sense God gave a grasshopper you could figure out that "inherited stuff moving" is the baby-talk equivalent of "gene flow," which refers to genetic information moving between groups of organisms due to actual, as opposed to potential, interbreeding.

IT'S GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. You could have two species of beetles living on the same shrub, and there's no more or less gene flow happening between them just sitting there than there would be if one of those species decamped to a different continent.

Even BABY-TALK leaves you completely in the dark as to what is going on.

3. ‘changes of inherited stuff results in enough differences in inherited stuff between the Beetles in South Africa and Beetles in Cameroon so that mating becomes essentially impossible.’ We need to examine how that (many changes leading to no mating) would be possible.
What you can't explain is how it can NOT be possible. What prevents two separate gene pools, where there's no "inherited stuff moving between beetles," from drifting apart, Magellan? What magical process prevents them from becoming more and more different with time?

Of course, you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. Even resorting to almost literal baby-talk isn't helping you.

I wouldn’t assume that to be so because that would be assuming one of the issues that is in contention.
Oh, really? What "issue" is being "assumed" here, Magellan? Do you think it's an "assumption" that genomes do not replicate perfectly indefinitely, for hundreds of thousands of generations? Do you think it's an "assumption" that two different populations where there's no gene flow between them will experience exactly the same mutations, in exactly the same places, even if these two populations are subject to completely different selection pressures?

Or maybe you think I'm talking about something completely different. What do you think I'm "assuming" when I talk about two disconnected gene pools slowly drifting apart over time?

And in case you haven't noticed, I'm done with the baby-talk. If you can't understand what a population is, or what selection pressures are, after posting on science forum in discussions about evolutionary theory for a solid year, then you're not smarter than a dog.

But if we do assume it is possible in a A What-If? context then I have no problem with your model because it differs in no material aspects to my model.

It differs in the following respects:

It uses reasonable assumptions about population sizes;
It is specific about circumstances that could actually, conceivably, lead to speciation.

And if you are happy with all of that then I am happy to use your model if you prefer.

Well, we're definitely not using your unusable model. So either figure out mine, or give up and abandon the thread.

Catholicity

March 1st 2011, 11:51 PM

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 01:09 AM

No I'm not, moron. I'm mocking you. Anyone who prefers to use "changes in inherited stuff" rather than "genetic drift" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "gettin' it on" to "interbreeding" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "bunch of" to "species" is an idiot. Anyone who prefers "where they live bein' the same place" to "territory overlap" is an idiot.

Shall I continue, or is my point sufficiently clear?
I get the point. You have a Thesaurus and you want to try it out - idiot, moron, breathtakingly stupid, utter moron.

Yes, I get the message. You think labels are the Bee's Knees. OK, OK. I don't agree.
Labels only work if they clarify something - and that takes two way communication (not Phaedrus's iron-fist approach).

I'm at a loss as to why you want to talk to someone who doesn't agree with and or who doesn't understand the concepts and reasoning you use. You seem happy to wallow around in it.

Either discuss things in terms we both understand and agree on, or talk to someone who agrees with 'Eric's Way Of Ruling The World'. Mind you, I do understand that there are some feeble souls around here who have insecurity issues.

Anyway - less of the 'Ericisms' if I can label them that.

They're identical, moron. Both passages describe exactly the same scenario. No, they are not identical. They use different words. In your head they might mean the same thing. Or it could be a case of 'Eric's Dictionary Syndrome' - where Eric declares 'This word means what I say it means - dictionary or no dictionary'. And yes, for the Einsteins like Sparko who can spot a label 20 yards away, 'Eric's Dictionary Syndrome' is a label. I explained what I meant by that label and if anyone is not sure what 'where Eric declares 'This word means what I say it means - dictionary or no dictionary.' ' means, I would be happy to explain it to them.

I used baby talk instead of grown-up talk. What can we infer from your preference for the baby-talk?
We can reasonably conclude that when you use baby talk your meaning becomes clearer.

What you prefer to call "inherited stuff," anyone who isn't a complete and utter moron refers to as "genes." That you think "inherited stuff" is somehow superior to "genes" just demonstrates your breathtaking stupidity.
Except 'Inherited Stuff' is your term. Why didn't you use 'genes' if you prefer 'genes'. I don't mind either and I never indicated that 'Inherited Stuff' was superior. How could I? You introduced the term.

What I did say was that Version 2 was superior to Version 1. If you would like me to explain why that doesn't necessarily mean that each particular ingredient in Version 2 is superior, rather that, on the whole, Version 2 is superior, just give me a yell. I'm always happy to assist you in your struggles with English and reasoning.

The phase "inherited stuff' moving has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. God you're a moron. If you had the sense God gave a grasshopper you could figure out that "inherited stuff moving" is the baby-talk equivalent of "gene flow," which refers to genetic information moving between groups of organisms due to actual, as opposed to potential, interbreeding. Let's put the blasphemy aside please.

Odd that you say 'If you had the sense you could figure out that "inherited stuff moving" is the equivalent of "gene flow,". Don't you remember me saying that 'gene-flow was a meaningless term in this discussion ? It's rather impossible to work out that one phrase has the same meaning as another meaningless phrase.

Too hard? Sigh.

IT'S GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. You could have two species of beetles living on the same shrub, and there's no more or less gene flow happening between them just sitting there than there would be if one of those species decamped to a different continent.
Given that (according to you) "inherited stuff moving" is the equivalent of "gene flow," that paragraph becomes.

'Inherited stuff moving' has GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. You could have two species of beetles living on the same shrub, and there's no more or less inherited stuff moving between them just sitting there than there would be if one of those species decamped to a different continent.

You see, substituting 'Gene-flow' for 'inherited stuff moving' takes you back to the term that you sought to avoid. You substitute a phrase for 'gene-flow' because gene-flow doesn't make sense and then you act surprised that I didn't know you really meant gene-flow. Weird.

So what does 'inherited stuff moving ' mean ?

What you can't explain is how it can NOT be possible. What prevents two separate gene pools, where there's no "inherited stuff moving between beetles," from drifting apart, Magellan?
If you tell me what 'Inherited Stuff moving ' means I might be able to answer your question.

What magical process prevents them from becoming more and more different with time?
I hope that by using your model, you will be able to show that lots of changes in 'inherited stuff' causes some animals not to mate with animals they used to mate with. Because that's one of the things you have to demonstrate if evolution is to have any credence.

Magellan

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 01:15 AM

Just a thought that might assist Eric -
If 'Inherited Stuff' includes say, Green Wings, then how would green wings move (Inherited Stuff moving) if the Beetles themselves didn't physically move?
In a cereal packet of Kellog's Green Beetle Wings?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 01:52 AM

I get the point.
No you don't.

You have a Thesaurus and you want to try it out - idiot, moron, breathtakingly stupid, utter moron.

They're all descriptive of you, Magellan. There's virtual unanimity here that they're descriptive of you. I didn't need a "thesaurus" to come up with "idiot" and "moron."

Yes, I get the message. You think labels are the Bee's Knees. OK, OK. I don't agree.
They're words, moron. I like to use words that mean something. You seem to prefer using entire sentences to convey the same meaning—when you even understand the words in the first place, which is rare.

But I'm curious, Magellan: why is "inherited stuff" somehow "better" than "genes"? Do you just like sounding like a yahoo?

Labels only work if they clarify something - and that takes two way communication (not Phaedrus's iron-fist approach).

Words work when everyone understands what they mean. You do not understand what words mean. Even after I take the trouble to define them for you, you still don't know what they mean.

It would be one thing if you asked me what I meant by a particular word and I refused to tell you (but that's your trick). It's an another thing entirely when I painstakingly explain what I mean by "gene flow," but you prefer "inherited stuff moving" (oops! left the important part of that phrase out, not having the slightest notion what it means) and then completely misconstrue what either term means.

I'm at a loss as to why you want to talk to someone who doesn't agree with and or who doesn't understand the concepts and reasoning you use. You seem happy to wallow around in it.

You misunderstand. My point is not really to explain things to you, or to persuade you to agree with me. My point is to demonstrate just how stupid you are.

Either discuss things in terms we both understand and agree on, or talk to someone who agrees with 'Eric's Way Of Ruling The World'. Mind you, I do understand that there are some feeble souls around here who have insecurity issues.

Hey, if you want to bail on the thread, because you can't understand words like "gene" or "population," or "genetic drift," then be my guest. You're not the only one reading this thread, Magellan, and I'm not going to insult everyone else's intelligence with baby-talk you still can't understand.

Anyway - less of the 'Ericisms' if I can label them that.

"Gene" isn't an "Ericism." "Population" isn't an "Ericism." "Genetic drift" isn't an "Ericism." Nor, for that matter, are words like "transformation series," autoapomorphy," "sister group," "homoplasy," or "single-nucleotide polymorphism." If you can't be bothered in actually looking terms like these up, and prefer to look like an ignorant hobo, be my guest.

No, they are not identical. They use different words.
That's your problem, Magellan. It's the same reason you think two statements that aren't worded identically are "contradictory." The two passages are identical in meaning. That they use different terms (grown-up language for one, baby-talk for the other) to convey identical meaning is clearly lost on you, like most things.

In your head they might mean the same thing.
In the head of anyone who isn't a complete idiot they mean EXACTLY the same thing.

Or it could be a case of 'Eric's Dictionary Syndrome' - where Eric declares 'This word means what I say it means - dictionary or no dictionary'.
Magellan, it would be one thing if you disputed that the words I use mean what I say they mean. It would be one thing if you said, "You're using this word to mean X, but in common usage, or in the current context, it actually means Y." But you're not saying that. You're objecting to my use of terms on the grounds that they're "jargon." Not that they don't mean what I claim they mean. Not on the grounds that I won't explain to you what I mean by them. Not on the grounds that I'm not clear how I'm using them.

You object to them solely on, for lack of a better term, aesthetic grounds. For reasons that aren't too hard to figure out, you don't like the way they sound.

And yes, for the Einsteins like Sparko who can spot a label 20 yards away, 'Eric's Dictionary Syndrome' is a label. I explained what I meant by that label and if anyone is not sure what 'where Eric declares 'This word means what I say it means - dictionary or no dictionary.' ' means, I would be happy to explain it to them.

No one else is having the slightest problem with my word choice here, Magellan. You are alone in your whining and crying that I use weird words.

But what's especially entertaining is that you've had nothing whatsoever to say about the substance of my statements. You've been whining and crying about their style.

PATHETIC.

We can reasonably conclude that when you use baby talk your meaning becomes clearer.

My meaning is LESS clear. You only THINK it's clear because you only understand baby-talk.

I'm not going to insult everyone else's intelligence with baby-talk because you can't understand grown-up talk.

Except 'Inherited Stuff' is your term. Why didn't you use 'genes' if you prefer 'genes'.
BECAUSE YOU WHINED AND COMPLAINED WHEN I USED IT. It's too hard, you can't figure out what it means, why do I always have to use jargon? Waaaaaaaah!

I don't mind either and I never indicated that 'Inherited Stuff' was superior. How could I? You introduced the term.

You've done nothing but complain about the words I use. No complaints about the substance of my arguments. And, in case you've forgotten, YOU JUST FINISHED COMPLAINING about the words I use:

Version 2. Is far superior. You did get rid of the useless labels. Well done. There are some terms that we need to look at and I’ll mention them in a minute.

Of course, you've already completely forgotten you ever said this (although you're about to say it again), so you don't remember complaining about my choice of words. But here you start up again…

What I did say was that Version 2 was superior to Version 1. If you would like me to explain why that doesn't necessarily mean that each particular ingredient in Version 2 is superior, rather that, on the whole, Version 2 is superior, just give me a yell. I'm always happy to assist you in your struggles with English and reasoning.

Whenever you say "I'd be happy to explain," you're never able to. Version 1 and Version 2 are IDENTICAL in every respect except for word choice. They describe EXACTLY THE SAME SCENARIO, and if you think they somehow describe different scenarios, that means you do not understand what either one of them actually says.

Odd that you say 'If you had the sense you could figure out that "inherited stuff moving" is the equivalent of "gene flow,". Don't you remember me saying that 'gene-flow was a meaningless term in this discussion

No. "inherited stuff moving between bunches of bugs" means the same thing as "gene flow." "Inherited stuff moving" doesn't mean anything.

Magellan, that you can't figure out the meaning of a phrase does not mean it doesn't have meaning. It means you're simply not smart enough to understand what it means, even after it's explained to you. I've already explained to you in detail what "gene flow" means. If that explanation couldn't penetrate your cranium, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

? It's rather impossible to work out that one phrase has the same meaning as another meaningless phrase.

I just told you they both mean the same thing. Why is one meaningful and not the other?

If you can't figure out that when you've got two groups of organisms that are interbreeding, so there is a transfer of genetic information between them, and then you've got another two groups of organisms which may be mating but none of those matings result in viable offspring so there is no transfer of genetic information, and therefore the first one is experiencing gene flow and the second one isn't, then maybe you're really not cut out for this "arguing about evolution" thing you think you're qualified to do.

Too hard? Sigh.

It's relatively easy to explain. It's relatively impossible for you to understand that explanation. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no one else here seems to have any trouble with this not-particularly-complex concept, but it's got you completely baffled?

Given that (according to you) "inherited stuff moving" is the equivalent of "gene flow," that paragraph becomes.

'Inherited stuff moving' has GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with beetles "moving" anywhere. You could have two species of beetles living on the same shrub, and there's no more or less inherited stuff moving between them just sitting there than there would be if one of those species decamped to a different continent.

You see, substituting 'Gene-flow' for 'inherited stuff moving' takes you back to the term that you sought to avoid. You substitute a phrase for 'gene-flow' because gene-flow doesn't make sense and then you act surprised that I didn't know you really meant gene-flow. Weird.

So what does 'inherited stuff moving ' mean ?

Maybe it would help if you used the real term: "inherited stuff moving between bunches of bugs." Does that help? No?

It means this: when you've got two bunches of bugs that are gettin' it on, so there is a transfer of inherited stuff between them, and then you've got another two bunches of bugs which may be gettin' it on but none of those gettin' it on result in babies so there is no transfer of inherited stuff, and therefore the first one is experiencing inherited stuff moving between bunches of bugs and the second one isn't. If you still don't get it, even when translated into baby-talk, then maybe you're really not cut out for this "arguing about evolution" thing you think you're qualified to do.

If you tell me what 'Inherited Stuff moving ' means I might be able to answer your question.

"Inherited stuff moving" doesn't mean much, Magellan. "Inherited stuff moving between bunches of bugs" means something.

I have never met anyone ever, anywhere, who didn't have an intuitive explanation of what "gene flow" means. Having to explain what it means is like having to explain the concept of "rainfall" to someone who knows what rain is.

I hope that by using your model, you will be able to show that lots of changes in 'inherited stuff' causes some animals not to mate with animals they used to mate with. Because that's one of the things you have to demonstrate if evolution is to have any credence.

First, my point here is not to persuade you; I frankly could not possibly care less whether you're persuaded or not. But what YOU need to show is that somehow, two different gene pools belonging to two different populations that could initially interbreed can maintain interfertility indefinitely despite the fact that there's no gene flow between those populations. What magical force keeps the two populations interfertile even when there's no gene flow between them.

If you got two mechanical clocks on opposite side of the world, and you keep them both wound but do not allow them to communicate in any way, what force would magically keep them synchronized indefinitely so they always tell the same time?

I've already discussed how polyploidy can result in reproductive isolation in a single generation. What on earth would keep millions of mutations over millions of years from doing the exact same thing, except over millions of generations?

If you can't explain what could do that, then you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt that speciation occurs. It cannot NOT occur. Not that you need a reason to think evolutionary theory is wrong.

But whining and crying about my using big words like "genes" isn't going to help you.

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 02:22 AM

Magellan keeps burning up pages whining and crying about everyone using grown-up words rather than baby-talk, because he cannot even understand anyone else's arguments, let alone critique them.

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 02:43 AM

It's relatively easy to explain. It's relatively impossible for you to understand that explanation. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no one else here seems to have any trouble with this not-particularly-complex concept, but it's got you completely baffled?
I wouldn't assume anything about 'no one else'. Sparko is lost. Rogue can only cite 'One day soon' as evidence that Speciation happens. Tiggy and you disagree over the meaning of Speciation. You disagree with Lao's Tzu that The Beetle model can be used to draw conclusions. And poor old Faid's bambboozled about something else.

Maybe it would help if you used the real term: "inherited stuff moving between bunches of bugs." Does that help? No?
All you have to do is to explain whether 'Inherited Stuff moving between bunches of bugs' can happen without two bugs giving birth to a child bug.

Because the one thing you can't admit is that the basic building block for everything is 'Two parents give birth to a child.'

If you got two mechanical clocks on opposite side of the world, and you keep them both wound but do not allow them to communicate in any way, what force would magically keep them synchronized indefinitely so they always tell the same time?
Two clocks do not mate and give birth to children.
In a biological system (sexuality aside) NOTHING happens without that.

In a colour spectrum, Two parents do not have children.
In a gene pool , two genes do not have children.
In a collection of taxa, two taxa do not have children.
Two populations do not mate and have children.
Two species do not mate and have children.

It's like talking about chemical bonding and trying to ignore molecules.

This may be news to you - In your so-called Evolutionary system, nothing takes place without parents having children and until you integrate that into your system your system will fail.

I've already discussed how polyploidy can result in reproductive isolation in a single generation.
OH? So when you talk to your Mum on the telephone you pull the line out of the socket and then discuss how you have been?

Your one-way proclamations on Polyploidy are legend. Only you would call them 'discussions'.

But if you do wish to actually have a discussion with me, give me a bell.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 02:43 AM

We've heard about your ruthless teaching practices before - where you seek to hand down the law to students who are not able to question your tactics.

It's a bit like a headmaster belting his students and afterwards asking 'There, now you understand?'

In this discussion the assumptions of evolution - the things we are 'TOLD' take place, are open to examination. If anyone is not prepared to arrive at common meanings of basic terms to be used in that discussion then they won't be able to cope in this thread. And by 'common meanings' words and terms that both sides are happy to use.

'Know-it-all' teachers wouldn't understand that system and wouldn't want to understand it. Their object is to 'instill'.

Magellan

LOL, you know nothing about me or my teaching style. My job, as I saw it, was to encourage students to think and I gave them the tools to do so. I always encouraged questioning and even disagreement providing it was well founded. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than a student asking me an insightful question that took me to some place I had never thought of before. You see, I like thinking, I like surprises and I like it when students stretch their own minds and mine. You'll have to do better than an ill-informed critique of education. It all continues to reinforce my beliefs that you have never experienced public high school education in Australia. Is this true? Were you homeschooled by a parent frightened of the evil world 'out there'?

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 03:34 AM

I wouldn't assume anything about 'no one else'. Sparko is lost.
Sparko is way less lost than you are. At least he doesn't have any trouble with what a "population" is.

Rogue can only cite 'One day soon' as evidence that Speciation happens.
We're not even talking about "evidence," moron. We're talking about an explanation for how speciation can happen. Rogue's understanding of the mechanisms of speciation if fine; yours is nonexistent.

Tiggy and you disagree over the meaning of Speciation.
Tiggy and I have no disagreements over the meaning of speciation. We are both aware that the meaning of the term "species" is different in different contexts. Just as the word "rose" means different things in different contexts.

You disagree with Lao's Tzu that The Beetle model can be used to draw conclusions.
Lao Tzu and I both agree that your "model" is worthless. We both agree that you are determined to find discontinuities where none exist.

Just because two people don't just parrot each other's posts don't mean they disagree, Magellan.

And poor old Faid's bambboozled about something else.

Faid isn't confused about anything. You're deeply confused about everything.

All you have to do is to explain whether 'Inherited Stuff moving between bunches of bugs' can happen without two bugs giving birth to a child bug.

I've already explained whether it can happen or it can't happen. I've explained it at least three times to you, including in baby-talk. You're no better at deciphering baby-talk than you are at grown-up talk.

if you can't figure out whether gene flow happens in the absence of reproduction, you truly are hopeless. Not that there was any doubt about that.

Because the one thing you can't admit is that the basic building block for everything is 'Two parents give birth to a child.'

Magellan, THE VERY FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT INGREDIENT IN EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IS REPRODUCTION. I've said this over and over and over again.

Even ENDLESS REPETITION of extremely simple concepts doesn't work. Maybe hammering them into your skull with a length of rebar would work.

Two clocks do not mate and give birth to children.
Not even close to apprehending my point. My point has nothing to do with clocks reproducing.

In a biological system (sexuality aside) NOTHING happens without that.

Completely missing the point of even why I mentioned clocks. I'll wager that every single other person reading this thread knew what my point was. Go ahead—ask them.

In a colour spectrum, Two parents do not have children.
You still haven't figured out that analogy, either. Several different people have used exactly the same analogy to make exactly the same point about the lack of discontinuities, and you miss it every single time.

In a gene pool , two genes do not have children.
In a collection of taxa, two taxa do not have children.
Really? You seemed to think so. How many times did I ask you if two taxa mate and have a baby taxon? You sure seemed to think they do.

Of course, you also seem to think the family dog constitutes its own "taxon." Or, at least, you were too scared you'd be wrong to ever answer the questions.

Two populations do not mate and have children.
How would you even know, Magellan? You've whined over and over again about not even knowing what a "population" is.

Two species do not mate and have children.

You thought they do. What were you talking about when you mentioned hybridization in Brassica? Do you even remember?

Where do you think all this declaration of the obvious is taking you, Magellan?

It's like talking about chemical bonding and trying to ignore molecules.

No, your stupidity is like talking about speciation and ignoring populations, or talking about reproductive isolation while ignoring gene flow.

This may be news to you - In your so-called Evolutionary system, nothing takes place without parents having children and until you integrate that into your system your system will fail.

Your ability to restate the obvious with an air of discovery never ceases to impress, Magellan. You seem to have forgotten that when I asked you what the four necessary ingredients are for evolutionary change, you couldn't even give me one of them. You couldn't even think of reproduction.

OH? So when you talk to your Mum on the telephone you pull the line out of the socket and then discuss how you have been?

This might be the most pointless question you've ever asked.

Your one-way proclamations on Polyploidy are legend. Only you would call them 'discussions'.

They're not "discussions" because you have nothing to discuss. By all appearances, you haven't even figured out what polyploidy is yet.

But if you do wish to actually have a discussion with me, give me a bell.

I don't have "discussions" with you, Magellan. I point at your stupidity and laugh.

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 03:37 AM

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 03:47 AM

Being lectured by Magellan that evolutionary theory involves reproduction is like being lectured by someone that bicycle racing involves bicycles.

(Leaving Magellan scratching his head thinking where clocks fit in.)

But ... bicycles don't reproduce sexually. What on earth do you mean? Is the clock on a bicycle? Actually upon reflection there are male and female bikes. Maybe they do reproduce sexually. Bikes come in colours too. Does that prove anything? Can a red bike reproduce with a green bike? Are they on an island. Is Poly riding one? Where are my glasses?

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 06:00 AM

Being lectured by Magellan that evolutionary theory involves reproduction is like being lectured by someone that bicycle racing involves bicycles.

(Leaving Magellan scratching his head thinking where clocks fit in.)

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Magellan

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 09:04 AM

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Magellan

LOL, even his own examples make him look stupid. Nuclear reactions involve nuclei, not molecules. They don't involve 'huge amounts of various chemicals'. Tell me, is there any subject you know anything about?

Really, I'm interested, did you ever attend a public high school in Australia?

Faid

March 2nd 2011, 10:01 AM

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

MagellanLol. Next Mags will want to know about the birds and the bees.

What part of "reproduction" do you find difficult, champ?

Tiggy

March 2nd 2011, 10:18 AM

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 11:30 AM

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
It's not an "assumption," nitwit. It's an observation.

But even if it were an "assumption": you have this idea that any assumption is bad. Which is wrong. An assumption is either warranted or it isn't. All of science—indeed, all human thinking about the world—assumes there is an external reality. Should we not assume that, because it's an "assumption"?

I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Magellan, I asked you weeks ago what the fundamental processes necessary for evolutionary change are. You couldn't give me a single one.

The first process necessary for evolutionary change is reproduction. If you don't get this, you have absolutely no business even trying to discuss evolutionary theory.

But it's pretty entertaining that last night you spent half a long post lecturing me on how evolutionary processes require reproduction, but her you are four hours later implying that's an unwarranted assumption.

You can't even keep your own story straight.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Your analogy works pretty well, Magellan, but not for the reasons you think. You walk into a conversation about nucleosynthesis and start talking about molecules, and then wonder why everyone thinks you're an idiot.

ETA: looks like Phaedrus made the same point about your halfwitted analogy that, like most things you say, makes you look like a complete idiot.

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 11:43 AM

Sparko is way less lost than you are. At least he doesn't have any trouble with what a "population" is.

derrrrr, isn't that what happens when you put corn kernals in a microwave? Theys populates and makes popcorn. /magellan mode off.

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 11:45 AM

It all continues to reinforce my beliefs that you have never experienced public high school education in Australia. Is this true? Were you homeschooled by a parent frightened of the evil world 'out there'?

64850

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 11:46 AM

it's nookular, dammit!

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 11:51 AM

Anyway, to get this trainwreck back on track:

Magellan started this thread to talk about the process of speciation (even though his example is cribbed from a UCMP page that discusses selection pressures, not speciation). Magellan obviously planned to prove speciation is impossible and doesn't happen, which would be difficult for him to do since he doesn't even understand how evolutionary theory proposes speciation happens.

We've got an observation: biodiversity. What's the explanation for it? Well, the consensus view (which already makes Magellan suspicious of it; if most scientists think it, it can't be true) is that all life on earth is related by descent with modification from a distant common ancestor. The reason all life isn't a single species is that single species speciate into more than one species. I gave an outline which explains how this happens: you start with one population of organisms where there gene flow within that population is much greater than outside it: a species. At some point, some sort of event or process (it could be as simple as the species expanding its range, resulting in different parts of the population being physically distant from other parts of it) results in reduced or eliminated gene flow between different subpopulations. Over time, accumulating mutations in each of the subpopulations will result in greater and greater genetic differences between them: genetic drift. Genetic drift does not happen within populations because there is significant gene flow within populations which smooths out the differences among individual genomes just as stirring a pot of water on the stove smooths out temperature differences in different parts of the pot.

Given sufficient time, the genetic differences between populations becomes so great that even if the two populations come in contact so that mating can occur, gene flow will not occur because no viable offspring result from matings. At the point where there is complete reproductive isolation, the process of speciation has completed and where once there was one species there are now two.

At this point, to the extent Magellan can figure out what any of this means, he seems to doubt that genetic differences can ever become so great that interfertility becomes essentially zero. This is where the clock analogy comes in, which Magellan couldn't figure out and complained that clocks don't have sex with each other. The problem for Magellan's doubts is that he cannot articulate a reason why genetic mutations cannot accumulate to the point where interbreeding is impossible. And worse, when we look at two species which are hypothesized to be the result of relatively recent speciation—humans and chimps—and look at the amount of genetic difference between them, we discover that the differences are in accord with how far apart we would expect them to be given estimates of their time of divergence and the observed mutation rate. Douglas Theobald:

Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.

Confirmation:

What we must compare are the data from three independent sources: (1) fossil record estimates of the time of divergence of species, (2) nucleotide differences between species, and (3) the observed rates of mutation in modern species. The overall conclusion is that these three are entirely consistent with one another.

For example, consider the human/chimp divergence, one of the most well-studied evolutionary relationships. Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have diverged, or shared a common ancestor, about 6 Mya, based on the fossil record (Stewart and Disotell 1998). The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar; their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical (King and Wilson 1975; Sverdlov 2000). The greatest differences between these genomes are found in pseudogenes, non-translated sequences, and fourfold degenerate third-base codon positions. All of these are very free from selection constraints, since changes in them have virtually no functional or phenotypic effect, and thus most mutational changes are incorporated and retained in their sequences. For these reasons, they should represent the background rate of spontaneous mutation in the genome. These regions with the highest sequence dissimilarity are what should be compared between species, since they will provide an upper limit on the rate of evolutionary change.

Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation (Crowe 1993; Futuyma 1998, p. 273).

Background spontaneous mutation rates are extremely important for cancer research, and they have been studied extensively in humans. A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation. This rate is a very minimum, because its value does not include insertions, deletions, or other base substitution mutations that can destroy the function of these genes (Giannelli et al. 1999; Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129). Thus, the fit amongst these three independent sources of data is extremely impressive.

Similar results have been found for many other species (Kumar and Subramanian 2002; Li 1997, pp. 180-181, 191). In short, the observed genetic rates of mutation closely match inferred rates based on paleological divergence times and genetic genomic differences. Therefore, the observed rates of mutation can easily account for the genetic differences observed between species as different as mice, chimpanzees, and humans.

From the usual source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates). There's a reason Magellan hates and fears Theobald even more than most scientists: Theobald's arguments obliterate Magellan's objections to evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, despite the neat concordance between theory, prediction, and observation, Magellan doesn't buy it. But that's fine; it's certainly no reflection on an argument when someone too stupid to understand it in the first place doesn't accept it. But it would be interesting to hear what Magellan's alternative explanation for biodiversity is.

Unfortunately, he doesn't have it. Obviously, he thinks godhadsomethingtodowithit. But he can't tell us what. The reason goddidit fails as an explanation isn't because science refuses to accept the possibility god might exist. The reason goddidit fails as an explanation is because there's no discussion or even proposal as to how goddidit. There's no discussion of mechanism or process.

So regardless of whether or not Magellan accepts this explanation for biodiversity, he doesn't have anything to compete with it.

Yay! We win; Magellan loses.

You need to ask permission next time before providing that much source material

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 11:53 AM

Yay! We win; Magellan loses.

Seems sort of like celebrating one day turning into another -- you know, something that's practically inevitable.

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 12:19 PM

Yeah, it's no big accomplishment making Magellan look like an idiot. His own analogy has him walking into a discussion on nucleosynthesis and talking about molecules.

Kelp

March 2nd 2011, 02:00 PM

What part of "reproduction" do you find difficult, champ?
I'd say the "not repulsing women" part, first of all...

lao tzu

March 2nd 2011, 02:29 PM

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Magellan

Nuclear reactions don't involve chemists, either.

Kelp

March 2nd 2011, 02:37 PM

The problem for Magellan's doubts is that he cannot articulate a reason why genetic mutations cannot accumulate to the point where interbreeding is impossible. And worse, when we look at two species which are hypothesized to be the result of relatively recent speciation—humans and chimps—and look at the amount of genetic difference between them, we discover that the differences are in accord with how far apart we would expect them to be given estimates of their time of divergence and the observed mutation rate.

I think part of the problem that Magellan is having here relates to the tale of the Chinese goldsmith. A bunch of goldsmiths got together to punish one of their number who’d been stealing from the trade association but they didn’t want anyone to know who killed him. So they to take turns taking a bite out of the guy till he died. Turns out it took one hundred bites (we’re assuming, by the way, that no one ruptured the poor guy’s jugular, or anything like that). So who delivered the killing blow? Was it the last guy? But one bite won’t kill a man? Number 20? Number 56? We don’t know.

What we do know is that all of them are responsible for the crime and at some point between bite #1 and bite #100, the guy became mortally wounded.

So it is with generations and hence Magellan’s problem with “two parents and a child.” Speciation is a gradual, fluid process. You can’t just pull up one out of a million individual generations and say, “Ah ha! This is the point at which speciation occurred!”

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 02:51 PM

I think part of the problem that Magellan is having here relates to the tale of the Chinese goldsmith. A bunch of goldsmiths got together to punish one of their number who’d been stealing from the trade association but they didn’t want anyone to know who killed him. So they to take turns taking a bite out of the guy till he died. Turns out it took one hundred bites (we’re assuming, by the way, that no one ruptured the poor guy’s jugular, or anything like that). So who delivered the killing blow? Was it the last guy? But one bite won’t kill a man? Number 20? Number 56? We don’t know.

What we do know is that all of them are responsible for the crime and at some point between bite #1 and bite #100, the guy became mortally wounded.

So it is with generations and hence Magellan’s problem with “two parents and a child.” Speciation is a gradual, fluid process. You can’t just pull up one out of a million individual generations and say, “Ah ha! This is the point at which speciation occurred!”

So Evolution is nothing but cannibalism!! :shocked:

I heard that atheists ate babies but now we have proof!

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 02:51 PM

lao tzu

March 2nd 2011, 03:22 PM

I heard that atheists ate babies but now we have proof!

It's kittens, and they're only used as part of our induction rites. Okay, well, you might find one or two spitted at the annual God-haters barbecue, but it's not like we're sending in the black helicopters to steal them from small children. Yet.

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 03:26 PM

It's kittens, and they're only used as part of our induction rites. Okay, well, you might find one or two spitted at the annual God-haters barbecue, but it's not like we're sending in the black helicopters to steal them from small children. Yet.

meh. I don't like cats much either. carry on.

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 03:33 PM

Tiggy

March 2nd 2011, 03:37 PM

So Evolution is nothing but cannibalism!! :shocked:

I heard that atheists ate babies but now we have proof!

Rumor is they taste just like bacon. :tongue:

- T

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 03:49 PM

Rumor is they taste just like bacon. :tongue:

- T
:no: http://www.babyfunlol.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/im-not-bacon.png :no:

lao tzu

March 2nd 2011, 03:49 PM

Now we know what's in those darn cookies that you keep offering :yes:

You've only begun to comprehend the perfidy. I get them from Kelp.

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 03:57 PM

:no: http://www.babyfunlol.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/im-not-bacon.png :no:

Hey, he looks a lot like a beetle!

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 03:58 PM

You've only begun to comprehend the perfidy. I get them from Kelp.
You know "perfidy" is just the sort of 'jargon' m004 claims is misleading him.

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 04:00 PM

Mags need to get a dictionary.

Tiggy

March 2nd 2011, 04:27 PM

You know "perfidy" is just the sort of 'jargon' m004 claims is misleading him.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5492695602_4a6cfbd55a.jpg

- T

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 04:33 PM

Mags need to get a dictionary.

oh wait, that's too jargony. I mean he needs to get a "book of word definitions"

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 04:37 PM

oh wait, that's too jargony. I mean he needs to get a "book of word definitions meanings"
FIFY n/c

Tiggy

March 2nd 2011, 04:47 PM

oh wait, that's too jargony. I mean he needs to get a "book of word definitions"

I'm thinking a book with lots of purty pixtures would be more his speed.

http://www.funinc.com/xcart/image.php?type=P&id=18451

- T

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 04:50 PM

FIFY n/c

Thanks, but maybe we should say "sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers, containing written representations of spoken sounds giving knowledge about their meanings"

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 04:52 PM

I'm thinking a book with lots of purty pixtures would be more his speed.

http://www.funinc.com/xcart/image.php?type=P&id=18451

- T

What do you have against clowns that you would insult them by insinuating that Mags is one of them?

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 05:51 PM

LOL, even his own examples make him look stupid. Nuclear reactions involve nuclei, not molecules. They don't involve 'huge amounts of various chemicals'. Tell me, is there any subject you know anything about?

Really, I'm interested, did you ever attend a public high school in Australia?

Oh. My bad. Uranium is not used in nuclear reactions.

'Iraq also attempted to enrich uranium with high-speed centrifuges. This effort had lower priority than the EMIS program. Centrifuge separation works by passing uranium molecules in gaseous form (UF6) through high-speed rotational machines called centrifuges. The different weights of the uranium isotopes cause them to separate, with the heavier U-238 being thrown to the outside of the centrifuge and the lighter U-235 staying nearer the inside. As with other enrichment techniques, centrifuges require several repetitions with the enriched product to reach a high enough concentration to serve as nuclear fuel.' http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/nuclear.html

Now to save the instant nuclear experts amongst you the bother let me fill in what your magnificent minds will come up with-

Eric - 'Moron. Uranium nuclei are used in the reaction. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself?'
Faid - 'Weazle - How does that have any bearing on molecules?'
Phaedrus - 'I taught science for over 30 years and never had a student quesion my authority.'
Tiggy - 'Clownshoes - look at this article - '1001 Ways To Cite Irrelevant Links.'

Phaedrus made two errors; well, at least two. One was him thinking that the discussion was about a nuclear reaction. The second was that , for some bizarre reason, Phaedrus assumed the persona of the idiot Chemist A.

But look at it this way - if Phaedrus had have understood the Chemist conversation he wouldn't have been able to identify with the idiot Chemist's reasoning.

Magellan

rogue06

March 2nd 2011, 05:54 PM

What do you have against clowns that you would insult them by insinuating that Mags is one of them?
Some clowns are really, really bad

http://holmezideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Funny_wallpapers_Radioactive_Clown_014166_-495x371.jpg

lao tzu

March 2nd 2011, 06:00 PM

Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'

Oh. My bad.

Yup.

sylas

March 2nd 2011, 06:02 PM

Oh. My bad. Uranium is not used in nuclear reactions.

'Iraq also attempted to enrich uranium with high-speed centrifuges. This effort had lower priority than the EMIS program. Centrifuge separation works by passing uranium molecules in gaseous form (UF6) through high-speed rotational machines called centrifuges. The different weights of the uranium isotopes cause them to separate, with the heavier U-238 being thrown to the outside of the centrifuge and the lighter U-235 staying nearer the inside. As with other enrichment techniques, centrifuges require several repetitions with the enriched product to reach a high enough concentration to serve as nuclear fuel.' http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/nuclear.html

Case in point. Uranium *IS* used in nuclear reactions, and "Uranium" is not a molecule. The quote you give is all about separating out the different isotopes -- the different kinds of nuclei.

It looks like "Uranium is not used in nuclear reactions" was an attempt to be sarcastic, but it has backfired spectacularly. The quote you give confirms precisely what phaedrus explained for you.

Slow down, magellan. You are getting piled on because you are way out of your depth and don't seem to even understand the words you are using, let alone the concepts. I don't mean that to be nasty, but as a genuine indicator that you need to take a break from this. It's a train wreck.

Cheers -- sylas

Carrikature

March 2nd 2011, 06:18 PM

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Magellan

What I find truly ironic is that this conversation would 'almost' be correct if you had just left out the word nuclear...

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 06:25 PM

Oh. My bad. Uranium is not used in nuclear reactions.
Wrong again. What do you think atomic bombs use, Magellan?

'Iraq also attempted to enrich uranium with high-speed centrifuges. This effort had lower priority than the EMIS program. Centrifuge separation works by passing uranium molecules in gaseous form (UF6) through high-speed rotational machines called centrifuges. The different weights of the uranium isotopes cause them to separate, with the heavier U-238 being thrown to the outside of the centrifuge and the lighter U-235 staying nearer the inside. As with other enrichment techniques, centrifuges require several repetitions with the enriched product to reach a high enough concentration to serve as nuclear fuel.' http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/nuclear.html

Presumably Magellan thinks that because uranium hexafluouride is a molecule, therefore molecules are involved in nuclear reactions.

They're not. Anyone who isn't a complete moron knows this.

Now to save the instant nuclear experts amongst you the bother let me fill in what your magnificent minds will come up with-
Eric - 'Moron. Uranium nuclei are used in the reaction. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself?'

Indeed. Why do you, Magellan?

Faid - 'Weazle - How does that have any bearing on molecules?'

Indeed. What makes you think the fact that uranium forms molecules with fluorine means molecules have any role in nuclear reactions?

Phaedrus - 'I taught science for over 30 years and never had a student quesion my authority.'
Since Phaedrus has already stated the contrary, what's your point, idiot?

Tiggy - 'Clownshoes - look at this article - '1001 Ways To Cite Irrelevant Links.'

It's strange—Magellan is becoming adept at predicting how his own stupidities are likely to be received. And yet he keeps posting them.

Phaedrus made two errors; well, at least two. One was him thinking that the discussion was about a nuclear reaction. The second was that , for some bizarre reason, Phaedrus assumed the persona of the idiot Chemist A.

No errors from Phaedrus, but the errors from Magellan keep piling up, like cars in a crash in coastal fog on the PCH.

But look at it this way - if Phaedrus had have understood the Chemist conversation he wouldn't have been able to identify with the idiot Chemist's reasoning.

Four different people pointed out the stupidity of your own-goal analogy, Magellan. Anyone smarter than you (i.e., everyone) would have realized you are the one making the mistakes, not others.

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 07:52 PM

Wrong again. What do you think atomic bombs use, Magellan?

Presumably Magellan thinks that because uranium hexafluouride is a molecule, therefore molecules are involved in nuclear reactions.

They're not. Anyone who isn't a complete moron knows this.

Indeed. Why do you, Magellan?

Indeed. What makes you think the fact that uranium forms molecules with fluorine means molecules have any role in nuclear reactions?

Since Phaedrus has already stated the contrary, what's your point, idiot?

It's strange—Magellan is becoming adept at predicting how his own stupidities are likely to be received. And yet he keeps posting them.

No errors from Phaedrus, but the errors from Magellan keep piling up, like cars in a crash in coastal fog on the PCH.

Four different people pointed out the stupidity of your own-goal analogy, Magellan. Anyone smarter than you (i.e., everyone) would have realized you are the one making the mistakes, not others.

Four people pointed out how mistaken they were.
But here I am again, doing the hard yards for you. Let's check out your , dare I say - 'logic'.

1. Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Evolutionist E. 'A split in populations causes speciation. '

2. Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Scientist M. 'Does this process involve two parents giving birth to a child?'

3. Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Evolutionist E. 'You idiot. We're talking about gene-flow.

4. Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Scientist M. 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the basic building block - Two parents , one Child?'

5. Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Evolutionist E. - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this speciation process involves huge numbers of genes.'

6. Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Scientist M. - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the basic building blocks of the process you claim takes place.'

7. Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'
Evolutionist E. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Here's a little test that you can do . It will show how your mind works. I have numbered the paragraphs above from 1 to 7. Let's say you were a spectator to the Chemists' conversation. At what paragraph would you as a spectator know that the converstaion was indeed about nuclear reactions? Give a number from 1 to 7. So say you know the conversation was indeed about nuclear stuff because of what was said in Paragraph 4 , your response would be 'At point 4.'

Now here's the magic. Do the same thing with the Evolution conversation. At what stage do we as spectators know that the conversation was about Gene-Flow?You will find that the number for both tests is the same.

Also - Subtract 3 from your number. That number will coincide with when the two idiots - Chemist A and Evolutionist E. thought they knew what the conversation was about . (If you calculate 0 that means - 'Before the conversation started.' )It's all Magic Maths and it's all in your mind.

Anyway - do it and let me know what your two numbers are.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 07:55 PM

Oh. My bad. Uranium is not used in nuclear reactions.

'Iraq also attempted to enrich uranium with high-speed centrifuges. This effort had lower priority than the EMIS program. Centrifuge separation works by passing uranium molecules in gaseous form (UF6) through high-speed rotational machines called centrifuges. The different weights of the uranium isotopes cause them to separate, with the heavier U-238 being thrown to the outside of the centrifuge and the lighter U-235 staying nearer the inside. As with other enrichment techniques, centrifuges require several repetitions with the enriched product to reach a high enough concentration to serve as nuclear fuel.' http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/nuclear.html

Now to save the instant nuclear experts amongst you the bother let me fill in what your magnificent minds will come up with-

Eric - 'Moron. Uranium nuclei are used in the reaction. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself?'
Faid - 'Weazle - How does that have any bearing on molecules?'
Phaedrus - 'I taught science for over 30 years and never had a student quesion my authority.'
Tiggy - 'Clownshoes - look at this article - '1001 Ways To Cite Irrelevant Links.'

Phaedrus made two errors; well, at least two. One was him thinking that the discussion was about a nuclear reaction. The second was that , for some bizarre reason, Phaedrus assumed the persona of the idiot Chemist A.

But look at it this way - if Phaedrus had have understood the Chemist conversation he wouldn't have been able to identify with the idiot Chemist's reasoning.

Magellan

he he he he, you get dumber and dumber with each passing post.

I'll make you a deal. I will cease posting to you or about you forever, if you HONESTLY answer this question: Have you ever been enrolled and attended as a student in a public high school in Australia?

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 08:12 PM

Four people pointed out how mistaken they were.
Uh oh, Magellan's hallucinating some argument that he imagines he's actually winning. But see if you can actually quote someone admitting that they were wrong, Magellan, and that molecules actually are involved in nuclear reactions. I'd expect you to find something that goes like, "Oh, right, sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, molecules actually are involved in nuclear reactions."

Just as an exercise. Because I'm pretty sure no such statement was made by anyone in this thread.

But here I am again, doing the hard yards for you. Let's check out your , dare I say - 'logic'.

Nope. Here you are again, providing entertainment with your incredible stupidity while you try to salvage your latest own-goal (while using as many pseudo-HTML tags as you possibly can):

1. Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Evolutionist E. 'A split in populations causes speciation. '

2. Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Scientist M. 'Does this process involve two parents giving birth to a child?'

3. Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Evolutionist E. 'You idiot. We're talking about gene-flow.

4. Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Scientist M. 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the basic building block - Two parents , one Child?'

5. Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Evolutionist E. - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this speciation process involves huge numbers of genes.'

6. Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Scientist M. - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the basic building blocks of the process you claim takes place.'

7. Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'
Evolutionist E. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

Apparently Magellan thinks tying all the incorrect things he said about nuclear reactions to all the incorrect misunderstandings he has about my explanation for how speciation happens does something other than make him look like a complete loser.

Here's a little test that you can do . It will show how your mind works. I have numbered the paragraphs above from 1 to 7. Let's say you were a spectator to the Chemists' conversation. At what paragraph would you as a spectator know that the converstaion was indeed about nuclear reactions? Give a number from 1 to 7. So say you know the conversation was indeed about nuclear stuff because of what was said in Paragraph 4 , your response would be 'At point 4.'

3. Of course, by sentence 5., it would be clear no one in this imaginary conversation knows what they're talking about. Not surprising, given that it's Magellan who's putting words in their mouths.

Now here's the magic. Do the same thing with the Evolution conversation. At what stage do we as spectators know that the conversation was about Gene-Flow?You will find that the number for both tests is the same.

The conversation is not about gene flow. The conversation is about speciation, which requires an understanding of what gene flow is in order to understand the explanation.

Oops! Once again Magellan demonstrates how utterly clueless he is. Because of course there's the same problem. Neither participant in this conversation has a clue, either. And how could they? Both participants have the words put in their mouths who hasn't the foggiest notion of population, gene flow, or, apparently, anything at all.

And where do we discover that the conversation is about speciation?

In sentence 1.

Also - Subtract 3 from your number. That number will coincide with when the two idiots - Chemist A and Evolutionist E. thought they knew what the conversation was about . (If you calculate 0 that means - 'Before the conversation started.' )It's all Magic Maths and it's all in your mind.

You mean these made-up conversations, where none of the participants have the slightest notion what they're talking about, because, of course, all four of them are just saying whatever Magellan wants them to say.

Anyway - do it and let me know what your two numbers are.

I'm sure that will really help with your understanding of my explanation for how speciation works, Magellan. Once you realize you're still just as much in the dark about what's being talked about, you'll drop the matter entirely.

But while you're setting out exercises for others, here's one for you: try restating my explanation of how speciation works, using your own words. I'll even let you re-read my explanation as many times as you like.

Just don't quote it verbatim.

(Too bad Magellan will never actually do it. The results would probably be fascinating.)

Sparko

March 2nd 2011, 08:13 PM

all I can say is :doh:

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 08:19 PM

Also, Magellan seems to think he's instructing everyone else that evolutionary theory involves reproduction.

Which is strange, because when I asked him last week what the principle processes involved in evolutionary change were, he couldn't name one of them. Not even reproduction.

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 08:22 PM

Uh oh, Magellan's hallucinating some argument that he imagines he's actually winning. But see if you can actually quote someone admitting that they were wrong, and molecules actually are involved in nuclear reactions.

Just as an exercise.

Nope. Here you are again, providing entertainment with your incredible stupidity while you try to salvage your latest own-goal (while using as many pseudo-HTML tags as you possibly can):

Apparently Magellan thinks tying all the incorrect things he said about nuclear reactions to all the incorrect misunderstandings he has about my explanation for how speciation happens does something other than make him look like a complete loser.

3. Of course, by sentence 5., it would be clear no one in this imaginary conversation knows what they're talking about. Not surprising, given that it's Magellan who's putting words in their mouths.

The conversation is not about gene flow. The conversation is about speciation, which requires an understanding of what gene flow is in order to understand the explanation.

Oops! Once again Magellan demonstrates how utterly clueless he is. Because of course there's the same problem. Neither participant in this conversation has a clue, either. And how could they? Both participants have the words put in their mouths who hasn't the foggiest notion of population, gene flow, or, apparently, anything at all.

And where do we discover that the conversation is about speciation?

In sentence 1.

You mean these made-up conversations, where none of the participants have the slightest notion what they're talking about, because, of course, all four of them are just saying whatever Magellan wants them to say.

I'm sure that will really help with your understanding of my explanation for how speciation works, Magellan. Once you realize you're still just as much in the dark about what's being talked about, you'll drop the matter entirely.

But while you're setting out exercises for others, here's one for you: try restating my explanation of how speciation works, using your own words. I'll even let you re-read my explanation as many times as you like.

Just don't quote it verbatim.

(Too bad Magellan will never actually do it. The results would probably be fascinating.)

When was the Chemist conversation about nuclear reactions?
A. Never,
B. Cannot be ascertained or
C. At paragraph ...

Magellan

sylas

March 2nd 2011, 08:33 PM

When was the Chemist conversation about nuclear reactions?
A. Never,
B. Cannot be ascertained or
C. At paragraph ...

It was your analogy, and you had both your imaginary chemists speaking of nuclear reactions right from when you first introduced it back in post #364.

I know. You 'ASSUME' we know the evolutionary process involves two parents having a child.
I can't assume that from anything you say - because you never start there. It is the basic building block of YOUR theory.

Here's an analogy which I know will help -
A chemist questions another chemist about a supposed process -

Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'
Chemist A - 'Oh My %$##$& ! You idiot ! Everyone knows that this reaction involves huge numbers of various chemicals.'
Chemist B - 'That's all very well. The discussion is not really about what 'everyone knows.' I am wondering if you understand the molecular building blocks of the reaction you claim takes place.'
Chemist A. - You insufferable moron. You troll. As if I have to explain anything to you.'

So you showed that you thought it was about nuclear reactions from the start, when both the "chemists" agreed explicitly that they were talking about nuclear reactions, in lines 3 and 4 in your analogy.

Like I said... you are out of your depth. You made a howler and it was picked up straight away. But you seem incapable of recognizing your errors and THAT is the biggest problem.

Cheers -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 08:49 PM

When was the Chemist conversation about nuclear reactions?
A. Never,
B. Cannot be ascertained or
C. At paragraph ...

Magellan

It's almost as if Magellan thinks he's talking about a conversation that actually happened, or something.

Going by your own writing, Magellan, "Chemist A" states, "You idiot, we are talking about nuclear reactions." Is there some sort of unreliable narrator problem here? Is maybe Chemist A mistaken? Do you know? It's your made-up conversation, after all. Maybe since in your mind chemists, being scientists, are always mistaken, you think we're all going to assume that any statement in a conversation you make up made by a scientist must be mistaken.

But I already answered your question. 3. Anyone overhearing this made-up conversation would infer that the subject is nuclear reactions, based on the statement made in sentence 3. Can you give us any reason to think this made-up conversation is not about nuclear reactions? Maybe because you yourself are an unreliable narrator?

Now: try paraphrasing my explanation of how speciation happens. That will give us some insight into just how wrong you really are.

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 08:52 PM

When was the Chemist conversation about nuclear reactions?
A. Never,
B. Cannot be ascertained or
C. At paragraph ...

Magellan

I'll make you a deal. I will cease posting to you or about you forever, if you HONESTLY answer this question: Have you ever been enrolled and attended as a student in a public high school in Australia?

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 08:58 PM

It was your analogy, and you had both your imaginary chemists speaking of nuclear reactions right from when you first introduced it back in post #364.

So you showed that you thought it was about nuclear reactions from the start, when both the "chemists" agreed explicitly that they were talking about nuclear reactions, in lines 3 and 4 in your analogy.

Like I said... you are out of your depth. You made a howler and it was picked up straight away. But you seem incapable of recognizing your errors and THAT is the biggest problem.
The Phaedrus/ Sylas /Eric Version -

(Two Chemists are discussing a real process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Yes. I agree, We are dealing with a nuclear reaction. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

The facts -

(Two Chemists are discussing a supposed process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

All Phaedrus had to say was 'If the conversation was about ...' rather than put his foot in it by inventing stuff.

And what do you do? You invent a little bit extra, just for the hell of it. 'Explicit agreement' - LOL.

I look forward to speaking again with you in the very distant future.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 2nd 2011, 09:05 PM

The Phaedrus/ Sylas /Eric Version -

(Two Chemists are discussing a real process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Yes. I agree, We are dealing with a nuclear reaction. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

The facts -

(Two Chemists are discussing a supposed process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

All Phaedrus had to say was 'If the conversation was about ...' rather than put his foot in it by inventing stuff.

And what do you do? You invent a little bit extra, just for the hell of it. 'Explicit agreement' - LOL.

I look forward to speaking again with you in the very distant future.

Magellan

Look idiot, Chemist B agrees with Chemist A that it's about nuclear reactions by saying 'Fine' in the last line and then proceeds to demonstrate he's an idiot (ie YOU) by asking for the explanation at molecular levels. Why can't you be a man and admit you stuffed up rather than continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

BTW, did you ever attend a public high school in Australia?

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 09:10 PM

The Phaedrus/ Sylas /Eric Version -

(Two Chemists are discussing a real process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Yes. I agree, We are dealing with a nuclear reaction. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

The facts -

(Two Chemists are discussing a supposed process)
Chemist A. 'Reaction X causes A.'
Chemist B. 'Does the reaction involve molecules?'
Chemist A. 'You idiot - we are talking about nuclear reactions.'
Chemist B - 'Fine. Can you start your explanation at the molecular level?'

Note the bolded word, Magellan.

All Phaedrus had to say was 'If the conversation was about ...' rather than put his foot in it by inventing stuff.

No one had to "invent" stuff to realize that both Chemist A and Chemist B are talking about nuclear reactions. The principal difference between A and B is that A realizes molecules are not involved in nuclear reactions, and B does not.

And what do you do? You invent a little bit extra, just for the hell of it. 'Explicit agreement' - LOL.

No one "invented" any explicit agreement. The explicit agreement is in your post.

Give it up, Magellan. Your best strategy at this point is to drop this stupid, pointless analogy that just makes you like even more of a moron than you usually look, and get back to entertaining us with your laughable misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.

sylas

March 2nd 2011, 09:20 PM

Your own analogy introduced the discussion as about "nuclear reactions" at line 3. Your own analogy had "Fine" to this stipulation in line 4 and went on to suggest starting to talk about it at the "molecular level".

Your analogy was very revealing; even more revealing is your inability to acknowledge what it is showing. Like I said, you are way WAY out of your depth, and until you learn that, you'll learn nothing. The first step to learning, of admitting you need to learn, isn't that hard of a step. Until you take it, you'll remain a picture child of deliberately chosen stupidity. Once you DO take it, your world turns around in a way you'll never regret.

Goodbye -- sylas

magellan004

March 2nd 2011, 09:57 PM

Note the bolded word, Magellan.

No one had to "invent" stuff to realize that both Chemist A and Chemist B are talking about nuclear reactions. The principal difference between A and B is that A realizes molecules are not involved in nuclear reactions, and B does not.

No one "invented" any explicit agreement. The explicit agreement is in your post.

Give it up, Magellan. Your best strategy at this point is to drop this stupid, pointless analogy that just makes you like even more of a moron than you usually look, and get back to entertaining us with your laughable misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.

To avoid any confusion in the future -
If were are discussing say, a supposed process , say Speciation

1. and I ask you to explain that supposed process (which at that stage is a supposed procees, not a process that you and I agree exists)

2. and you inject , by way of 'explanation' (and I'm using that word euphemistically) into the converstion some Evo-Jargon such as gene-flow-

Eg. 'We're talking about gene-flow' when it's painfully obvious that as far as I am concerned we are not talking about any such thing
3. and I reply 'Fine - can you explain this process starting at the Parent - Child building block?'

Then you can rest assured that I am not explicitly agreeing that we are discussing gene-flow for the simple reason that we haven't even established that Speciation is a process. I am saying 'Fine' as if to say - 'Call it what you will, how is it meant to work?'

Too hard? Give me a buzz and I'll explain it further.

Magellan

Tiggy

March 2nd 2011, 10:09 PM

To avoid any confusion in the future -
If were are discussing say, a supposed process , say Speciation

1. and I ask you to explain that supposed process (which at that stage is a supposed procees, not a process that you and I agree exists)

2. and you inject , by way of 'explanation' (and I'm using that word euphemistically) into the converstion some Evo-Jargon such as gene-flow-

Magellan, please explain to everyone here the American game of baseball. But don't inject by way of 'explanation' any of that Sports-jargon such as pitcher, catcher, umpire, field, ball, strike, out, hit, run, inning, or base.

:ahem:

That's exactly how stupid you sound here Clownshoes.

- T

sylas

March 2nd 2011, 10:35 PM

I can't resist.

I don't know what YOU think the chemist analogy was meant to show, but it sure showed a few things to me.

If anyone saw this chemist dialog written down in isolation, you'd know straight away it's not real, and that the author of the analogy doesn't know the basics of chemistry or what it means to be nuclear or molecular, simply from the labels of the protagonists as "chemist".

But let's just say two random people are overheard in this exchange, and we don't know what phenomenon or effect they are speaking of, or whether it is real, or anything else other than what the two individual say for themselves.

We'd know that "A" isn't speaking as a chemist, since she is speaking of nuclear reactions in line 3. She also comes across as short tempered.

We'd know that "B" is clueless from line 4, which perhaps explains "A"'s behaviour. "A" notes that a reaction is nuclear. "B" says "fine" and then wants to talk about it at the molecular level. This shows that "B" doesn't know what they are talking about. You can't say "fine" to a stipulation that a reaction is nuclear (whether you accept it or not) and then want to talk about it at the molecular level.

But then in line 5 in the analogy shows that "A" is ignorant also. She started talking about nuclear reactions and now is talking about lots of chemicals!

So either we have a real discussion by two people who don't have even the basic comprehension of what they are talking about.

Or we have an imaginary discussion written by one person who doesn't have even the basic comprehension of the terms and concepts used in their imagined discussion.

This also is your problem with speciation and evolution, as has been noted. Your capacity to follow basic concepts and terminology in the topic of the thread is ... lacking. This is fixable; but you have to grasp that you need to learn more about the subject before you can say what is right or wrong with it.

Sylas

ericmurphy

March 2nd 2011, 11:34 PM

To avoid any confusion in the future -
It's impossible to avoid confusion on your part, Magellan. You are congenitally confused.

You are, after all, the one who could not distinguish between a white swan and a black swan, and who could not understand why the existence of black swans falsifies the assertion that all swans are white.

If were are discussing say, a supposed process , say Speciation

1. and I ask you to explain that supposed process (which at that stage is a supposed procees, not a process that you and I agree exists)

2. and you inject , by way of 'explanation' (and I'm using that word euphemistically) into the converstion some Evo-Jargon such as gene-flow-

Eg. 'We're talking about gene-flow' when it's painfully obvious that as far as I am concerned we are not talking about any such thing
3. and I reply 'Fine - can you explain this process starting at the Parent - Child building block?'

Then you can rest assured that I am not explicitly agreeing that we are discussing gene-flow for the simple reason that we haven't even established that Speciation is a process. I am saying 'Fine' as if to say - 'Call it what you will, how is it meant to work?'

Magellan, the stupidity here is so overwhelming it's difficult to know where to start.

First, I would like to think we're all past the point where we understand that organisms reproduce and the result is offspring. If this concept is giving you trouble, I suggest you maybe consult one of Judy Bloom's fine young-adult novels.

Second, I've defined gene flow for you repeatedly. Instead of saying whether or not that definition works for you, or whether not you understand it, you prefer continue to object to my use of it, without giving any grounds for your objection other than that it's "jargon." That would be a valid objection if I refused to define the term. Since I HAVE defined the term, your objection is stupid and pointless.

Third, you seem to be under the misapprehension (now there's something new) that "gene flow" somehow depends conceptually on the notion of speciation. It doesn't. Gene flow happens—or doesn't happen—regardless of whether or not speciation happens, and you don't have to accept speciation, or even understand it as a concept, in order to understand the notion of gene flow. Maybe an example will help:

There is gene flow among the human inhabitants of New York City. There is no gene flow between the human inhabitants of New York City and the rat population of New York City. There is no gene flow between the rat population of New York City and the rat population of McMurdo Sound Station in Antarctica.

This is true regardless of whether or not speciation happens, or whether or not you accept the premise of speciation. Speciation relies on a significant reduction or cessation of gene flow between populations. Gene flow as a concept depends in no way on the concept of speciation.

If you weren't a complete and utter moron, you'd have a prayer of understanding this. But you since you are a complete and utter moron, you don't have a prayer of understanding it.

That's okay. It's not my purpose here to educate you, but rather to hold you up as an example of the utter intellectual vacuity of creationists (at least some of them).

Too hard? Give me a buzz and I'll explain it further.

Magellan, you can't even understand what gene flow means. The chances you're actually capable of explaining something—even your own thoughts—are zero.

lao tzu

March 3rd 2011, 01:48 AM

Your capacity to follow basic concepts and terminology in the topic of the thread is ... lacking. This is fixable; but you have to grasp that you need to learn more about the subject before you can say what is right or wrong with it.

Magellan is an import from a site called Evolution Fairy Tales (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php). Your suggestion that his ignorance is fixable may be true in theory, but ... in practice, not so much. No need to register. They ban anyone referencing TalkOrigins, and you've already let slip you're a contributor.

They also have a policy of banning those they call "time wasters." I suspect Mags is deliberately taking advantage of TWeb's policy to allow such disruption. Say what you will about him, but the pages and pages of disturbed electrons from his stay here show him to be a formidable troll. He's actually quite clever, outside of science. He shows a good grasp of grammar and excellent writing skills when he applies himself. His ability to soak up vitriol without returning it is entirely commendable, as well.

As ever, Jesse

ericmurphy

March 3rd 2011, 03:29 AM

Of, course his ability to dish out arrogance, condescension, and vast quantities of ignorance is, well, maybe not entirely commendable…

magellan004

March 3rd 2011, 04:44 AM

First, I would like to think we're all past the point where we understand that organisms reproduce and the result is offspring.

Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.

Explain that process.

Your reply has so far been 'You (Magellan) show how that is not possible.'
It is not my story.
Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.
It's your story . Explain that process.

The building block is, and can only be - two parents give birth to a child.
The result (according to you is a 'House' ) the set of animals that we see today on Earth.

We've tried all of these canards -

1. It happens slowly, not in one generation.
2. Populations (of species - which is a circular argument) split
3. Lots of changes add up to what we see today.

I know all that stuff . You have dished it up for over a year.

Your argument is essentially 'Here is a building block (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge) and they must must make this house.'

I know, I know, it's all too hard - so I'll translate -
Your argument is essentially 'Here is (Two parents - > Child) (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge) and that must lead to lots of different groups of different animals.'

There doesn't have to be any of your theatrics.
It's simple.
Here is the starting point - 'Way back in history Two parents that we'll call Animal A gave birth to a child ... '

Here is the end point - your target - 'The result was all of the animals we see on Earth today.

Get to work!

Magellan

phaedrus

March 3rd 2011, 07:01 AM

Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.

Explain that process.

Your reply has so far been 'You (Magellan) show how that is not possible.'
It is not my story.
Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.
It's your story . Explain that process.

The building block is, and can only be - two parents give birth to a child.
The result (according to you is a 'House' ) the set of animals that we see today on Earth.

We've tried all of these canards -

1. It happens slowly, not in one generation.
2. Populations (of species - which is a circular argument) split
3. Lots of changes add up to what we see today.

I know all that stuff . You have dished it up for over a year.

Your argument is essentially 'Here is a building block (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge) and they must must make this house.'

I know, I know, it's all too hard - so I'll translate -
Your argument is essentially 'Here is (Two parents - > Child) (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge) and that must lead to lots of different groups of different animals.'

There doesn't have to be any of your theatrics.
It's simple.
Here is the starting point - 'Way back in history Two parents that we'll call Animal A gave birth to a child ... '

Here is the end point - your target - 'The result was all of the animals we see on Earth today.

Get to work!

Magellan

I'm really seriously going to try to help you now. Nobody who accepts evolution thinks that a long time ago 2 penguins mated and gave birth to an avocado. Gradual change really is the key. Since you love making up analogies with people conversing, may I give you one to help you see:

Magellan: What are you doing?
Phaedrus: I'm building a cathedral.
Magellan: No, you're not. You just put one stone on top of another stone.
Phaedrus: Yes, that's the process I'm using to build a cathedral.
Magellan: But you'll never get a cathedral that way, all you'll get is a pile of stones.
Phaedrus: Keep watching.

time goes by.

Magellan: Where did that cathedral come from?
Phaedrus: I built it, stone upon stone.
Magellan: Nonsense, you can't get a cathedral from stones. The very notion is absurd! One stone plus another stone never gives you anything more than a pile of stones.
Phaedrus: But you watched me do it. I explained every step.
Magellan: Is that my mother calling? I must be going.

ericmurphy

March 3rd 2011, 11:49 AM

Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.

Which you seem to think happens in a single generation or something.

Explain that process.

AGAIN?

We've got an observation: biodiversity. What's the explanation for it? Well, the consensus view (which already makes Magellan suspicious of it; if most scientists think it, it can't be true) is that all life on earth is related by descent with modification from a distant common ancestor. The reason all life isn't a single species is that single species speciate into more than one species. I gave an outline which explains how this happens: you start with one population of organisms where there gene flow within that population is much greater than outside it: a species. At some point, some sort of event or process (it could be as simple as the species expanding its range, resulting in different parts of the population being physically distant from other parts of it) results in reduced or eliminated gene flow between different subpopulations. Over time, accumulating mutations in each of the subpopulations will result in greater and greater genetic differences between them: genetic drift. Genetic drift does not happen within populations because there is significant gene flow within populations which smooths out the differences among individual genomes just as stirring a pot of water on the stove smooths out temperature differences in different parts of the pot.

Given sufficient time, the genetic differences between populations becomes so great that even if the two populations come in contact so that mating can occur, gene flow will not occur because no viable offspring result from matings. At the point where there is complete reproductive isolation, the process of speciation has completed and where once there was one species there are now two.

This like the tenth time I've explained this, in at least three different ways, Magellan.

Your reply has so far been 'You (Magellan) show how that is not possible.'

No. Your reply has been, "How do we know genomes diverge?" I quoted you from the Theobald article you hate and fear so much how we know:

Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.

Confirmation:

What we must compare are the data from three independent sources: (1) fossil record estimates of the time of divergence of species, (2) nucleotide differences between species, and (3) the observed rates of mutation in modern species. The overall conclusion is that these three are entirely consistent with one another.

For example, consider the human/chimp divergence, one of the most well-studied evolutionary relationships. Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have diverged, or shared a common ancestor, about 6 Mya, based on the fossil record (Stewart and Disotell 1998). The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar; their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical (King and Wilson 1975; Sverdlov 2000). The greatest differences between these genomes are found in pseudogenes, non-translated sequences, and fourfold degenerate third-base codon positions. All of these are very free from selection constraints, since changes in them have virtually no functional or phenotypic effect, and thus most mutational changes are incorporated and retained in their sequences. For these reasons, they should represent the background rate of spontaneous mutation in the genome. These regions with the highest sequence dissimilarity are what should be compared between species, since they will provide an upper limit on the rate of evolutionary change.

Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation (Crowe 1993; Futuyma 1998, p. 273).

Background spontaneous mutation rates are extremely important for cancer research, and they have been studied extensively in humans. A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation. This rate is a very minimum, because its value does not include insertions, deletions, or other base substitution mutations that can destroy the function of these genes (Giannelli et al. 1999; Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129). Thus, the fit amongst these three independent sources of data is extremely impressive.

Similar results have been found for many other species (Kumar and Subramanian 2002; Li 1997, pp. 180-181, 191). In short, the observed genetic rates of mutation closely match inferred rates based on paleological divergence times and genetic genomic differences. Therefore, the observed rates of mutation can easily account for the genetic differences observed between species as different as mice, chimpanzees, and humans.

From the usual source. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates)

Which, of course, left you speechless.

It is not my story.
Your story is that parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.
It's your story . Explain that process.

Explain your problems with that explanation. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

The building block is, and can only be - two parents give birth to a child.
So now you think the only process working in evolutionary change is reproduction? I asked you weeks ago to even try to name the essential processes for evolutionary change, and you couldn't even come up with reproduction! You couldn't come up with anything!

The result (according to you is a 'House' ) the set of animals that we see today on Earth.

According to me "is a 'House."? What's that supposed to mean? And why is it the only thing you talk about is "animals," Magellan? Metazoa is a small fraction of the total biodiversity. Do you think plants don't evolve? What about fungi? Euglenia? Bacteria? Archaea? It's just the usual PlaySkool creationism; they don't even notice the existence of anything beyond animals.

We've tried all of these canards -

Just because you can't figure them out doesn't make them "canards," moron.

1. It happens slowly, not in one generation.
2. Populations (of species - which is a circular argument) split
3. Lots of changes add up to what we see today.

Explain how a "population of species" is even an argument, let alone a "circular" argument, Magellan. A "population" is simply defined as a number of organisms, all capable of interbreeding, which actually do interbreed. Explain how that's an "argument," let alone a "circular" argument.

I know all that stuff . You have dished it up for over a year.

You don't know any of it. And you've never shown even the slightest understanding of it for over a year. You haven't made a single coherent criticism of it over a year.

Your argument is essentially 'Here is a building block (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge) and they must must make this house.'

That's your pathetic, idiotic understanding of the argument.

I know, I know, it's all too hard - so I'll translate -
Your argument is essentially [COLOR=DARKRED] 'Here is (Two parents - > Child) (That's the part of your argument you won't acknowledge)
Why do you keep pretending I won't acknowledge that reproduction is part of evolutionary change? Why do you keep saying that when you know it's false? What does it mean for you to keep repeating knowing falsehoods, Magellan?

Or is maybe "reproduction" one of those "jargon" terms you don't know the meaning of?

and that must lead to lots of different groups of different animals.'

And plants, fungi, bacteria, choanoflagellates, and the other tens of millions of species of organisms you don't even seem to know exist.

There doesn't have to be any of your theatrics.

You don't seem to get the purpose of your being here, Magellan. It's for our entertainment.

It's simple.
Here is the starting point - 'Way back in history Two parents that we'll call Animal A gave birth to a child ... '

Or, as is common, thousands of children simultaneously. Magellan seems to think a mommy lobster and a daddy lobster have sex, and then nine months later a baby lobster is born.

Here is the end point - your target - 'The result was all of the animals we see on Earth today.

Get to work!

Try doing a little reading:
We've got an observation: biodiversity. What's the explanation for it? Well, the consensus view (which already makes Magellan suspicious of it; if most scientists think it, it can't be true) is that all life on earth is related by descent with modification from a distant common ancestor. The reason all life isn't a single species is that single species speciate into more than one species. I gave an outline which explains how this happens: you start with one population of organisms where there gene flow within that population is much greater than outside it: a species. At some point, some sort of event or process (it could be as simple as the species expanding its range, resulting in different parts of the population being physically distant from other parts of it) results in reduced or eliminated gene flow between different subpopulations. Over time, accumulating mutations in each of the subpopulations will result in greater and greater genetic differences between them: genetic drift. Genetic drift does not happen within populations because there is significant gene flow within populations which smooths out the differences among individual genomes just as stirring a pot of water on the stove smooths out temperature differences in different parts of the pot.

Given sufficient time, the genetic differences between populations becomes so great that even if the two populations come in contact so that mating can occur, gene flow will not occur because no viable offspring result from matings. At the point where there is complete reproductive isolation, the process of speciation has completed and where once there was one species there are now two.

And if you ask me how we know genomes will eventually diverge enough to prevent interbreeding, I'll just quote the same thing:

Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.

Confirmation:

What we must compare are the data from three independent sources: (1) fossil record estimates of the time of divergence of species, (2) nucleotide differences between species, and (3) the observed rates of mutation in modern species. The overall conclusion is that these three are entirely consistent with one another.

For example, consider the human/chimp divergence, one of the most well-studied evolutionary relationships. Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have diverged, or shared a common ancestor, about 6 Mya, based on the fossil record (Stewart and Disotell 1998). The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar; their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical (King and Wilson 1975; Sverdlov 2000). The greatest differences between these genomes are found in pseudogenes, non-translated sequences, and fourfold degenerate third-base codon positions. All of these are very free from selection constraints, since changes in them have virtually no functional or phenotypic effect, and thus most mutational changes are incorporated and retained in their sequences. For these reasons, they should represent the background rate of spontaneous mutation in the genome. These regions with the highest sequence dissimilarity are what should be compared between species, since they will provide an upper limit on the rate of evolutionary change.

Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation (Crowe 1993; Futuyma 1998, p. 273).

Background spontaneous mutation rates are extremely important for cancer research, and they have been studied extensively in humans. A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation. This rate is a very minimum, because its value does not include insertions, deletions, or other base substitution mutations that can destroy the function of these genes (Giannelli et al. 1999; Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129). Thus, the fit amongst these three independent sources of data is extremely impressive.

Similar results have been found for many other species (Kumar and Subramanian 2002; Li 1997, pp. 180-181, 191). In short, the observed genetic rates of mutation closely match inferred rates based on paleological divergence times and genetic genomic differences. Therefore, the observed rates of mutation can easily account for the genetic differences observed between species as different as mice, chimpanzees, and humans.

From the usual source. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates)

It doesn't make you look very smart, Magellan, when you ask for an explanation over and over again, and get it over and over again, but you don't even try to comment on the explanation.

ericmurphy

March 3rd 2011, 11:56 AM

Watch Magellan complain that my explanation didn't start with a mommy and a daddy giving birth to a baby. Of course, if he could actually make head or tail of what "gene flow" means, he'd realize how stupid that objection is. But he can't, so he won't.

Sparko

March 3rd 2011, 11:57 AM

It doesn't make you look very smart, Magellan, when you ask for an explanation over and over again, and get it over and over again, but you don't even try to comment on the explanation.

actually it doesn't make you look too smart Eric. Can't you see Magellan is just trolling you? Getting you to answer the same thing over and over and wasting your time?

ericmurphy

March 3rd 2011, 12:54 PM

actually it doesn't make you look too smart Eric. Can't you see Magellan is just trolling you? Getting you to answer the same thing over and over and wasting your time?

You're assuming three things: 1) that I take Magellan seriously (he's a blatantly obvious troll); 2) that I actually care whether he understands what I'm saying (it's actually better if he can't understand it) and 3) that this isn't purely entertainment for me. Some people waste time watching TV; I waste time watching Magellan make an idiot of himself in public (the "nuclear reactions" debacle was a classic).

If I were actually interested in a discussion with Magellan I would have stopped a long time ago. Magellan's post are a testament to creationist stupidity; all I'm doing is getting him to make them.

magellan004

March 3rd 2011, 08:01 PM

I'm really seriously going to try to help you now. Nobody who accepts evolution thinks that a long time ago 2 penguins mated and gave birth to an avocado. Gradual change really is the key. Since you love making up analogies with people conversing, may I give you one to help you see:

Magellan: What are you doing?
Phaedrus: I'm building a cathedral.
Magellan: No, you're not. You just put one stone on top of another stone.
Phaedrus: Yes, that's the process I'm using to build a cathedral.
Magellan: But you'll never get a cathedral that way, all you'll get is a pile of stones.
Phaedrus: Keep watching.

That does help thanks.
It can be done with a Cathedral - so why not with Evolution? Start here - 'Two parents give birth to a child '. Explain the steps to 'Many different animals.'

It's no good saying 'It would take too long', 'There are too many bricks'.
All you have to do is start exlpaining step by step. If I get the gist of it I will let you know and you can stop. If I can't see how you got to 'Step X' I will ask.

There's no need to skip steps, to assume 'I should know', to abuse me etc.
Just start the explanation. Start here - 'Two parents give birth to a child '.

Thanks.
Magellan

Sparko

March 3rd 2011, 08:15 PM

magellan004

March 3rd 2011, 08:26 PM

Why do you keep pretending I won't acknowledge that reproduction is part of evolutionary change?
I ask 'Show how two parents giving birth to a child ends with many different animals'.
Your answer - 'Reproduction is part of the evolutionary process.'

That's not what I am asking. I am asking you to start with a parent couple and a child and explain what happens next. If you can't do it just say so. Please don't pretend you can do it and won't do it.

Hark back to your school days when you would have heard some brat say 'I can do it but I am not going to'. Did that attitude ever fool anyone?

As far as your worries about other organisms besides animals I am sticking to animals as an example. Step by step - get it? Besides, if you explain how Evolution works with animals then I promise I will accept that evolution works with all organisms.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 3rd 2011, 08:34 PM

I ask 'Show how two parents giving birth to a child ends with many different animals'.
Your answer - 'Reproduction is part of the evolutionary process.'

I explained how this happens. Repeatedly.

If you think I'm going to take you step by step, where the first 750,000 steps are just telling you individual mating pairs produce progeny, you're insane.

That's not what I am asking. I am asking you to start with a parent couple and a child and explain what happens next.

That child mates with some other mating pair's child. Along with all the other members of that generation in the population. This goes on for hundreds of thousands of generations with nothing going on except for an accumulation of mutations. What, you want me to give you the names of each of these organisms?

If you can't do it just say so. Please don't pretend you can do it and won't do it.

If you can't figure out how reproduction works, I'm afraid I can't do too much to explain it for you, Magellan. If you're too stupid to figure out that reproduction is the result of parents mating and having children, you're way way WAY too stupid to figure out speciation.

Hark back to your school days when you would have heard some brat say 'I can do it but I am not going to'. Did that attitude ever fool anyone?

Hark back to your school days when your teachers said, "Hey! You! In the back row! Get your head up off the desk and pay attention!" Did your attitude help with your grades?

As far as your worries about other organisms besides animals I am sticking to animals as an example. Step by step - get it? Besides, if you explain how Evolution works with animals then I promise I will accept that evolution works with all organisms.

Once you've figured out how reproduction produces descendants, get back to me.

I've seen a lot of idiot creationists not be able to figure out evolution works. You're the first one who can't figure out how reproduction works.

phaedrus

March 3rd 2011, 08:42 PM

That does help thanks.
It can be done with a Cathedral - so why not with Evolution? Start here - 'Two parents give birth to a child '. Explain the steps to 'Many different animals.'

It's no good saying 'It would take too long', 'There are too many bricks'.
All you have to do is start exlpaining step by step. If I get the gist of it I will let you know and you can stop. If I can't see how you got to 'Step X' I will ask.

There's no need to skip steps, to assume 'I should know', to abuse me etc.
Just start the explanation. Start here - 'Two parents give birth to a child '.

Thanks.
Magellan

In a population of a single species there are all kinds of variations. In sexual reproduction, some of those variations (plus new variations caused by mutations) are passed on to offspring after mummy and daddy have a bottle of wine and get frisky. Some of those variations will give advantage to some of the offspring and they will be more likely to pass on those variations to their offspring (after wine and ensuing friskiness). And so the process continues, stone upon stone. Let's say one part of the population is now separated from the other geographically. Stone upon stone the process goes on. Gradually, because the two populations are separated the genetic difference between the two will grow. This will result in decreasing fertility between the two groups (should they meet) until no fertile offspring can be produced between the two groups. They are now two different species. And that, ladies and gentleman, is how a panda gave birth to a pineapple.

(NOTE: I can't start 'two parents give birth to a child without establishing that you know about genetic variation. It's like in my analogy, you asking, explain to me how you built this cathedral and you must start with 'The windows go here'.)

magellan004

March 3rd 2011, 09:18 PM

Forget about evolution. What I am about to say has nothing to do with evolution. It is an entirely different concept. Nothing to do with evolution. You are safe. I am not attacking evolution so put all thoughts of evolution aside.
Out there in space lies Planet Xu. On Planet Xu is a group of beings that from first appearances resemble a beetle - a Brown Beetle. There are no other ‘Beetles’ except Brown Beetles. Xu Beetles have these properties –
1. All Brown Beetles are identical.
2. A Brown Beetle has a limited life span.
3. Brown Beetles have no genes, alleles or anything resembling those things.
4. IF two Brown Beetles (call them parents) rub antennae together sometimes, not all the time, a new Brown Beetle ( a child) appears. All new Brown Beetles are identical to the all other Brown Beetles.
On the whole the number of Beetles on Xu has slowly increased over time.
Then one day two parents ‘gave birth’ to a child that had one different feature to its parents. Call the Parents ‘Original Beetle’ type and call this child the original individual ‘Beetle with Change 1’.
It turns out that no parents can ever again give birth to a type of Beetle with Change 1 unless one of the parents has an ancestor who has or had possessed Change 1.
If a type of Beetle - ‘ Beetle with change 1’ has a child then that child will either be identical to the ‘Beetle with Change 1’ or identical to the partner of ‘Beetle with Change 1’.
So at any point in time if we looked at the Xu Beetles and saw a Beetle with Change 1 then we would know that the Beetle with Change 1 came from the original individual ‘Beetle with Change 1’s’ line.
Also , if at any point in time if we looked at the Xu Beetles and saw a Beetle with Change 1 then we would know that at some stage there must have been some number of original type Beetles and some number of Beetles with Change 1.
The number of changes plus one gives the number of different types of Beetles that are or have been around.
A Beetle of the type Beetle with Change 1 can ‘mate’ (which on Xu means rub antennae with another Beetle and produce a new Beetle) with either an Original type Beetle or with another Beetle with Change 1.
Strange to say one day two Beetles of type Beetles with Change 1 gave birth to a child with Change 2. That new Beetle was able to ‘mate’ with either Original type Beetles or with Beetles with Change 1. Since that time, no parents could give birth to a Beetle with Change 2 unless one of the parents came from the line of the original individual Beetle with Change 2.
If an astronaut from Earth visited Xu and saw a Beetle with Change 2 then that astronaut could calculate that there must be or must have been three types of Beetles –
1. Original Beetle
2. Beetle with Change 1 .
3. Beetle with Change 2.
The number of different types of Beetles is equal to the number of changes plus one.

Let’s say our astronaut returns to Earth and reports –

Nasa Man – ‘Your report please’.
Astronaut- ‘ I saw two individual Beetles on Xu – an Original Type Beetle and a Beetle with Change 2.
Nasa Man- ‘Tell me more.’
Astronaut.- I knew that there had to be three types of Beetles on Xu at some stage or at various stages.
Nasa Man – Are you saying that if we find a Beetle with Change 10 on Xu we can reasonably conclude that there must have existed Eleven types of Beetles.
Astronaut. ‘Yes Sir! By counting the number of differences between one type of Beetle and another we can accurately determine the number of types of Beetles that must have existed.’
Nasa Man – ‘Are you hiding anything? A little detail perhaps?’
Astronaut – ‘I didn’t want to upset you Sir but the calculated number of types of Beetles (as outlined above) is a bare minimum. There must have been many, many more types of Beetles. But before I explain you will have to lower the Cone Of Silence.’’
Nasa Man. ‘OK - We’ll have to keep this top secret. There are some HIGS* out there who will go to ridiculous lengths to deny all this.’
*[i] HIGS -Wilhelm Reich’s term for hoodlums in government.[/]
(To be continued)

Magellan

sylas

March 3rd 2011, 09:23 PM

Good explanation, phaedrus. Let me try to repeat it in even simpler words.

Wolf cubs are like, but not identical to, their parents. Their cubs in turn, are different again. As time goes by, each new generation is a little bit different again. Sometimes they may look like their grandparents! Sometimes not. But as time goes by, the general tendency is that each new generation is further and further removed from the one we start with.

On the other hand! There can only be a limited amount of difference between the cubs within a single generation. After all, they have to be able to recognize each other, and form new packs and new cubs. Animals that are too different from each other can't mate effectively anymore. There is no such constraint on how far they can diverge from an original generation, because they don't have to mate with their great-great-etc-grandparents anymore.

As this goes on for millions upon millions of years, there's no limit on how different they can become from where they started.

Now here's the thing! Wolves can be found all over the world, but packs form from within a more limited area. So there's nothing to keep the wolves in China remaining able to mate with those in Europe, as time goes on.

As time goes by, the Chinese wolves and the European wolves also tend to become more and more different from each other. As time goes by, what may have been all descended from one large pack of wolves may be two or more different species.

Finis.

-------

Now, a few comments, a bit more technical.

I've said nothing about selection -- except indirectly; as a way to ensure that a single related group of interbreeding wolves remains fairly similar to each other. If they don't, then they can't interbreed, and cubs which fail to breed don't have descendants in the next generation. That is, one effect of selection is to ensure that an interbreeding group of wolves remains roughly similar to each other even as successive generations get further from the starting point.

Selection can ALSO help accelerate divergence of populations, when there are different selective pressures on different populations. But selection is often primarily a conservative force, helping to limit the rate of evolutionary change by weeding out what is too different to interbreed. This is basically what happens with "genetic drift", or Kimura's contributions on "neutral" theory.

Furthermore, I have made empirical statements (there's no limit to how far a population can diverge from an original generation) which some folks might disagree with. Given what we know now of genetics, this is true, but it's not obvious or axiomatic. Some people seem to think that there's some bound on how far changes can accumulate (all evidence indicates such people are wrong) or that there's a kind of "wolf pattern" which is fixed and which each generation must refer back to. (That's wrong also. There's only the previous generation as the prototype, which is why change can continue to drift without limit.)

There are other effects as well in speciation; this is not a complete account at all of how all speciation results. But it IS a simple and correct account of how speciation can occur, in a simple case that pretty much anyone could understand.

People who have been paying attention will also have no trouble seeing where gene flow is used in my account, even through I don't use the term.

Cheers -- sylas

magellan004

March 3rd 2011, 10:13 PM

(NOTE: I can't start 'two parents give birth to a child without establishing that you know about genetic variation. It's like in my analogy, you asking, explain to me how you built this cathedral and you must start with 'The windows go here'.)

With the Cathedral, there re two possibilities -
1. You can explain how to build a Cathedral starting with 'Place brick number 1 on level gound. ' or
2. You cannot explain how to build a Cathedral step by step, starting with 'Place brick number 1 on the ground. '.

If No 1. applies (in the evolution realm) then please start the explanation.
If No. 2 applies then permit me to be as sceptical of your assurances that 'evolution can be explained even though I can't explain it' as you are sceptical of my abilities to comprehend your arguments.

It's all about finding a common language, a starting point.
If I set out to explain something to you , say how to build a Cathedral and you asked me to start at the beginning, I would think it's sensible to find out a starting point at with which we were both comfortable with.

Eric's not interested because apparently his agenda is purely to humiliate. Other evolutionists indicate that they are happy to accept what the Powers That Be tell them.

That's all OK except for one thing - 'I know but I won't explain it to you' is not very convincing.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 3rd 2011, 10:19 PM

With the Cathedral, there re two possibilities -
1. You can explain how to build a Cathedral starting with 'Place brick number 1 on level gound. ' or
2. You cannot explain how to build a Cathedral step by step, starting with 'Place brick number 1 on the ground. '.

If No 1. applies (in the evolution realm) then please start the explanation.
If No. 2 applies then permit me to be as sceptical of your assurances that 'evolution can be explained even though I can't explain it' as you are sceptical of my abilities to comprehend your arguments.

It's all about finding a common language, a starting point.
If I set out to explain something to you , say how to build a Cathedral and you asked me to start at the beginning, I would think it's sensible to find out a starting point at with which we were both comfortable with.

Eric's not interested because apparently his agenda is purely to humiliate. Other evolutionists indicate that they are happy to accept what the Powers That Be tell them.

That's all OK except for one thing - 'I know but I won't explain it to you' is not very convincing.

Magellan

number 1 applies and I did it. tThe first brick is a population with variations. Simple as that.

Tiggy

March 3rd 2011, 10:35 PM

With the Cathedral, there re two possibilities -
1. You can explain how to build a Cathedral starting with 'Place brick number 1 on level gound. ' or
2. You cannot explain how to build a Cathedral step by step, starting with 'Place brick number 1 on the ground. '.

If No 1. applies (in the evolution realm) then please start the explanation.
If No. 2 applies then permit me to be as sceptical of your assurances that 'evolution can be explained even though I can't explain it' as you are sceptical of my abilities to comprehend your arguments.

It's all about finding a common language, a starting point.
If I set out to explain something to you , say how to build a Cathedral and you asked me to start at the beginning, I would think it's sensible to find out a starting point at with which we were both comfortable with.

Eric's not interested because apparently his agenda is purely to humiliate. Other evolutionists indicate that they are happy to accept what the Powers That Be tell them.

That's all OK except for one thing - 'I know but I won't explain it to you' is not very convincing.

Magellan

Clownshoes, you're not interested in learning. Your only game is to see how much time you can get other people to waste on your stupidity. (i.e. Beetles from Xu :ahem: )

You've been shown the U. Berkeley Evolution 101 site a dozen times. We know you've seen it because you mentioned visiting the site, but you're too lazy to actually read the simple layman's explanations. The offer was made that we'd answer specific questions about specific topics at the site but you're too lazy to actually read it.

Why should anyone do anything to help you when you aren't interested in helping yourself?

- T

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 12:14 AM

Forget about evolution. What I am about to say has nothing to do with evolution. It is an entirely different concept. Nothing to do with evolution. You are safe.
"Safe"? Are you joking? You're not exactly a threat to evolutionary theory, Magellan.

I am not attacking evolution so put all thoughts of evolution aside.
You've never been "attacking evolution." You been attacking your own strawman version of evolutionary theory that bears little resemblance to the actual theory.

Out there in space lies Planet Xu. On Planet Xu is a group of beings that from first appearances resemble a beetle - a Brown Beetle. There are no other ‘Beetles’ except Brown Beetles. Xu Beetles have these properties –
1. All Brown Beetles are identical.
2. A Brown Beetle has a limited life span.
3. Brown Beetles have no genes, alleles or anything resembling those things.
4. IF two Brown Beetles (call them parents) rub antennae together sometimes, not all the time, a new Brown Beetle ( a child) appears. All new Brown Beetles are identical to the all other Brown Beetles.
On the whole the number of Beetles on Xu has slowly increased over time.
Then one day two parents ‘gave birth’ to a child that had one different feature to its parents. Call the Parents ‘Original Beetle’ type and call this child the original individual ‘Beetle with Change 1’.
It turns out that no parents can ever again give birth to a type of Beetle with Change 1 unless one of the parents has an ancestor who has or had possessed Change 1.
If a type of Beetle - ‘ Beetle with change 1’ has a child then that child will either be identical to the ‘Beetle with Change 1’ or identical to the partner of ‘Beetle with Change 1’.
So at any point in time if we looked at the Xu Beetles and saw a Beetle with Change 1 then we would know that the Beetle with Change 1 came from the original individual ‘Beetle with Change 1’s’ line.
Also , if at any point in time if we looked at the Xu Beetles and saw a Beetle with Change 1 then we would know that at some stage there must have been some number of original type Beetles and some number of Beetles with Change 1.
The number of changes plus one gives the number of different types of Beetles that are or have been around.
A Beetle of the type Beetle with Change 1 can ‘mate’ (which on Xu means rub antennae with another Beetle and produce a new Beetle) with either an Original type Beetle or with another Beetle with Change 1.
Strange to say one day two Beetles of type Beetles with Change 1 gave birth to a child with Change 2. That new Beetle was able to ‘mate’ with either Original type Beetles or with Beetles with Change 1. Since that time, no parents could give birth to a Beetle with Change 2 unless one of the parents came from the line of the original individual Beetle with Change 2.
If an astronaut from Earth visited Xu and saw a Beetle with Change 2 then that astronaut could calculate that there must be or must have been three types of Beetles –
1. Original Beetle
2. Beetle with Change 1 .
3. Beetle with Change 2.
The number of different types of Beetles is equal to the number of changes plus one.

Let’s say our astronaut returns to Earth and reports –

Nasa Man – ‘Your report please’.
Astronaut- ‘ I saw two individual Beetles on Xu – an Original Type Beetle and a Beetle with Change 2.
Nasa Man- ‘Tell me more.’
Astronaut.- I knew that there had to be three types of Beetles on Xu at some stage or at various stages.
Nasa Man – Are you saying that if we find a Beetle with Change 10 on Xu we can reasonably conclude that there must have existed Eleven types of Beetles.
Astronaut. ‘Yes Sir! By counting the number of differences between one type of Beetle and another we can accurately determine the number of types of Beetles that must have existed.’
Nasa Man – ‘Are you hiding anything? A little detail perhaps?’
Astronaut – ‘I didn’t want to upset you Sir but the calculated number of types of Beetles (as outlined above) is a bare minimum. There must have been many, many more types of Beetles. But before I explain you will have to lower the Cone Of Silence.’’
Nasa Man. ‘OK - We’ll have to keep this top secret. There are some HIGS* out there who will go to ridiculous lengths to deny all this.’
*[i] HIGS -Wilhelm Reich’s term for hoodlums in government.[/]
(To be continued)

Well, even reading that mess turned out to be a waste of time.

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 01:57 AM

number 1 applies and I did it. tThe first brick is a population with variations. Simple as that.

A population of what?
A group of individuals that can interbreed.
So we could start with Brown Beetles on a shrub ; 10 - five males and and five female.

Good.
Next step?

Magellan

sylas

March 4th 2011, 02:02 AM

Next step is three years later, with 10 beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 02:16 AM

At this rate, we're going to have about half a million steps before anything significant happens.

Magellan's strategy here is to bore everyone to death.

sylas

March 4th 2011, 02:26 AM

Now now. The lad obviously has .... limitations. So let's take it one step at a time.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 02:57 AM

Well, Magellan does claim to have infinite patience…

phaedrus

March 4th 2011, 07:34 AM

Yep, Sylas is right, offspring with variations. This has been explained to you numerous times. The information is freely available. If it is an area that truly fascinates you you can enrol in a University and study. I might point out university study does not mean brainwashing. You are free to disagree but at least you'll understand what you disagree with.

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 08:58 AM

Next step is three years later, with 10 beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

Let's say in year three there have been three generations.
That means in year three there are alive 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 30 different types of Beetles (assuming more or less constant numbers each generation) and they are all able to interbreed.

By year 4 - 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 40 types of Beetles - all able to interbreed.

Let's say there is a geographic split - the Beetles are split into two groups "Left Group' and 'Right Group'.

By generation 5 there are 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 50 different types of Beetles , all able to interbreed.

By Generation (say) 500,000 there are 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 5,000,000 types of Beetles all able to interbreed.

Let me know if I have understood so far.
If so - what's next?

Magellan

sylas

March 4th 2011, 09:56 AM

Tiggy

March 4th 2011, 10:09 AM

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 11:34 AM

Let's say in year three there have been three generations.
That means in year three there are alive 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 30 different types of Beetles (assuming more or less constant numbers each generation) and they are all able to interbreed.

By year 4 - 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 40 types of Beetles - all able to interbreed.

Let's say there is a geographic split - the Beetles are split into two groups "Left Group' and 'Right Group'.

By generation 5 there are 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 50 different types of Beetles , all able to interbreed.

By Generation (say) 500,000 there are 10 different types of Beetles and there have been 5,000,000 types of Beetles all able to interbreed.

Let me know if I have understood so far.
If so - what's next?

Magellan

I wonder what Magellan thinks he means by a "type" of beetle. Presumably he's talking about varieties within a species. He now has more than five million varieties within this one species of beetle. That seems like plenty of variety for selection pressures to work with.

So I wonder what he thinks the problem is.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 12:08 PM

You have also presumed that after 500,000 generations that all beetles will be able to interbreed. That's most unlikely if they have been geologically isolated over all that time. You are merely presuming no speciation occurs.

Since Magellan's going to say this anyway, I'll say it for him: "But you're assuming speciation does occur, which is what is in dispute."

Sparko

March 4th 2011, 12:42 PM

Magellan, you missed my earlier question to you:

Can you explain how we have derived all the various dog breeds from the wolf?

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 01:26 PM

The problem with your comments is that your use of the word "type" corresponds to being any difference at all. Since no two individuals are identical, this robs the word "type" of all meaning, as you can see by speaking of 5 million "types" of beetles, which is really just five million different beetles, all of the same species.

This use of the word "type" is merely silly.

You have also presumed that after 500,000 generations that all beetles will be able to interbreed. That's most unlikely if they have been geologically isolated over all that time. You are merely presuming no speciation occurs.

By 500,000 generations, in two separated populations of beetles, it is very likely that there will be significantly reduced fertility between the two separated groups; and indeed an identifiable speciation.

Leave out the undefined word "type" altogether, and certainly don't abuse it by making every individual a different type!

I intended this as a serious comment, by the way, and I WAS thinking of how the example would proceed. But the above use of the word "type" is so ludicrous that I don't think you are being serious about even trying to follow this.

If you tell me you are genuine about trying to follow this, say so. To be frank, I won't believe you; but that's okay. I'll pretend, and proceed further in all seriousness and without quibble.

Cheers -- sylas

I am grateful that you are attempting to work through this illustration. I am not trying to presume anything other than the status quo until there is a reason to think something new, different, happens. And that would be a Step we need to look at. That is why I asked for a step by step explanation. If you think I have jumped a step, just let me know. Eric seemed to get stressed about the time it would take to work through it so I extrapolated from what you said.

I do not want to presume speciation - I want to see how you explain it arising.
If I thought the logical progression was speciation then I wouldn't be discussing these things.

Here are two suggestions - but of course I invite you to reject them if they do not serve -

Suggestion 1.
Start with 10 different Beetles. Next step is three years later, with 10 different beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

If we say there is a generation a year and the numbers remain fairly constant over the years then -

1. At Year 1 we have 10 different Beetles and they can all interbreed.
2. At year Two we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 20 different Beetles all up. (Plus maybe some dead ones) and they can (if they were all alive) all interbreed.
3. At year three we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 30 different Beetles all up. (Plus dead ones) and they can all interbreed.

Next step?

Suggestion 2.
Start with 10 different Beetles. Next step is three years later, with 10 different beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

If we say there is a generation a year and the numbers remain fairly constant over the years then -

1. At Year 1 we have 10 different Beetles and they can all interbreed.
2. At year Two have 10 different Beetles and we have had 20 different Beetles all up. (Plus maybe some dead ones) and they can (if they were all alive) all interbreed.
3. At year three we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 30 different Beetles all up. (Plus dead ones) and they can all interbreed.
4. By year 4 we have 10 different Beetles and there have been 40 different Beetles - all able potentially to interbreed (if they were alive).

Let's say there is a geographic split - the Beetles are split into two groups "Left Group' and 'Right Group'.

By generation 5 there are 10 different Beetles and there have been 50 different Beetles , all able to potentially interbreed (if they were alive).

By Generation (say) 500,000 there are 10 different of Beetles and there have been 5,000,000 different Beetles all able to potentially interbreed if they were alive.

Have I missed anything? If not - Next step?

Magellan

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 01:39 PM

Magellan, you missed my earlier question to you:

Can you explain how we have derived all the various dog breeds from the wolf?

I didn't miss it. Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

I have no idea. I can't see how you could get from say, a kennel of wolves to a Irish Setter.

Let's say an Irish Setter has Red Fur and that and that no wolf has ever been born with red hair before we start breeding. And let's say the Irish Setter has a tail longer than any wolf has ever had.

Can you explain how we could start with a kennel of wolves and breed an Irish Setter?

By the way - I am aware that some people think that modern dogs might have descended from wolves.

Magellan

Sparko

March 4th 2011, 02:42 PM

I didn't miss it. Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

I have no idea. I can't see how you could get from say, a kennel of wolves to a Irish Setter.

Let's say an Irish Setter has Red Fur and that and that no wolf has ever been born with red hair before we start breeding. And let's say the Irish Setter has a tail longer than any wolf has ever had.

Can you explain how we could start with a kennel of wolves and breed an Irish Setter?

By the way - I am aware that some people think that modern dogs might have descended from wolves.

Magellan

so yo don't believe that dogs were bred from wolves? OK, let's move past that. We do know that men have been creating various breeds of dogs for at least 1000 years of recorded history. We even have records of various breeds being created correct? Or do you think that all modern dog breeds were created by God in the garden of Eden?

If you do believe men are responsible for various dog breeds, then you have to admit that change (very significant change if you compare a chihuahua and a great dane) can occur through generations of breeding and selection right? So how come you seem to have such a problem with at least micro evolution, like a brown beetle becoming a green beetle? We are not even talking about something like a reptile becoming a mammal here.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 02:54 PM

I am grateful that you are attempting to work through this illustration. I am not trying to presume anything other than the status quo until there is a reason to think something new, different, happens. And that would be a Step we need to look at. That is why I asked for a step by step explanation. If you think I have jumped a step, just let me know. Eric seemed to get stressed about the time it would take to work through it so I extrapolated from what you said.

Get over yourself, Magellan. You're not "stressing" anyone out. If anything, you're comic relief.

But the problem with your silly objections to evolutionary theory is that you always assume there's some sort of discontinuity, where suddenly, in a single generation, everything changes. Maybe you should look up the word "gradualism" to get an idea of why you're wrong about that.

You seem to walk through every generation of the half-million or so generations it takes for the process of speciation to complete. Given that essentially nothing happens from one generation to the next, the obvious question is, what is the utility of going through the process one generation at a time? Are you just trying to exhaust your opponents?

I do not want to presume speciation - I want to see how you explain it arising.
It would help if you would explain what, exactly, is giving you problems in the explanations you've already been given. At least three different people have given you essentially the same explanation as to how speciation happens (and just because they're not using the identical wording does not mean they are "totally contradicting" each other). But instead of doing that, you keep pretending no such explanations have ever been given. Although it appears your objection to my explanation is that it doesn't walk you through every single instance of reproduction in half a million generations during which billions of individuals are born, reproduce, and die.

If I thought the logical progression was speciation then I wouldn't be discussing these things.

The logical progression is: 1) reproduction + 2) mutation + 3) isolation + 4)selection/drift = speciation.

Here are two suggestions - but of course I invite you to reject them if they do not serve -

Suggestion 1. Start with 10 different Beetles. Next step is three years later, with 10 different beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

Three years later? Nothing happens in three years. Nothing happens in three hundred years. Nothing happens in three thousand years. Something might happen in thirty thousand years. In three hundred thousand years there's a good chance something will happen.

If we say there is a generation a year and the numbers remain fairly constant over the years then -

] 1. At Year 1 we have 10 different Beetles and they can all interbreed.
2. At year Two we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 20 different Beetles all up. (Plus maybe some dead ones) and they can (if they were all alive) all interbreed.
3. At year three we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 30 different Beetles all up. (Plus dead ones) and they can all interbreed.

Next step?

Repeat for at least another ten thousand years.

Suggestion 2.
Start with 10 different Beetles. Next step is three years later, with 10 different beetles on a shrub. They are descendants of the 10 you started with. They are all just a little bit different from each other and from their parents.

If we say there is a generation a year and the numbers remain fairly constant over the years then -

1. At Year 1 we have 10 different Beetles and they can all interbreed.
2. At year Two have 10 different Beetles and we have had 20 different Beetles all up. (Plus maybe some dead ones) and they can (if they were all alive) all interbreed.
3. At year three we have 10 different Beetles and we have had 30 different Beetles all up. (Plus dead ones) and they can all interbreed.
4. By year 4 we have 10 different Beetles and there have been 40 different Beetles - all able potentially to interbreed (if they were alive).

Let's say there is a geographic split - the Beetles are split into two groups "Left Group' and 'Right Group'.

By generation 5 there are 10 different Beetles and there have been 50 different Beetles , all able to potentially interbreed (if they were alive).

By Generation (say) 500,000 there are 10 different of Beetles and there have been 5,000,000 different Beetles all able to potentially interbreed if they were alive.

Have I missed anything? If not - Next step?

Of course you've missed something. You've missed the accumulation of mutations resulting in differences between the two gene pools sufficient to prevent interbreeding. You find it hard to believe this can happen, but aside from expressions of personal incredulity you can't give a reason why you find it hard to believe. I've already presented evidence that the amount of differences in two different taxa—humans and chimps—is in accord with the amount of differences we should see given the estimated time since isolation times the mutation rate per generation.

Of course, you ignored all of that.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 03:44 PM

I didn't miss it. Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

I have no idea.
Evolutionary theory does. So I guess that means we win.

I can't see how you could get from say, a kennel of wolves to a Irish Setter.

Evolutionary theory can. So I guess that means we win again.

Let's say an Irish Setter has Red Fur and that and that no wolf has ever been born with red hair before we start breeding.
Well, if that were actually true, it would be hard to explain. [ETA: although not impossible. If any ancestor of Irish setters ever had a mutation that resulted in red hair, similar to the one producing red hair in humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Genetics), there's still no problem] Fortunately it's not true: red wolves have red hair. Hence the name.

And let's say the Irish Setter has a tail longer than any wolf has ever had.

That's not a problem, because not all wolves have exactly the same tail length. Some are longer than others.

Can you explain how we could start with a kennel of wolves and breed an Irish Setter?

Sure. We breed a lot of wolves; thousands of generations of them. Some of them will have red hair (and a lot of other features, to a greater or lesser extent, that dogs have), and some will have long tails. We breed together the ones with the traits we want (e.g., red hair and long tails), and set the rest of them free.

After many generations, we get dogs with red hair and long tails. Darwin figured this out a century and a half ago.

By the way - I am aware that some people think that modern dogs might have descended from wolves.

Given that dogs can interbreed with wolves, why would you think otherwise?

rogue06

March 4th 2011, 04:27 PM

By the way - I am aware that some people think that modern dogs might have descended from wolves.
Now where would we get such a crazy notion from? Maybe because they can breed together to produce little wolf-dogs? Here is just one example:

64875

The Saarlooswolfhond (http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/saarlooswolfhond.htm) (also HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarlooswolfhond)) is Dutch for "Saarloos Wolfdog" and is an established breed of wolf-dog hybrid that arose from experiments in crossing German Shepherds with wolves that started by Leendert Saarloos in 1921 – only 90 years ago.

ETA: And maybe when you start breeding wolves for tameness they also start taking on dog-like characteristics like floppy ears as a side-effect. The wolves become more and more dog-like in temperament and appearance.

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 04:39 PM

so yo don't believe that dogs were bred from wolves? OK, let's move past that. We do know that men have been creating various breeds of dogs for at least 1000 years of recorded history. We even have records of various breeds being created correct? Or do you think that all modern dog breeds were created by God in the garden of Eden?

If you do believe men are responsible for various dog breeds, then you have to admit that change (very significant change if you compare a chihuahua and a great dane) can occur through generations of breeding and selection right? So how come you seem to have such a problem with at least micro evolution, like a brown beetle becoming a green beetle? We are not even talking about something like a reptile becoming a mammal here.

The problem I have centres around novel changes - changes which have never occurred before. Eg If no Beetle has ever had a green shell then how does a Green Shelled Beetle first appear? Is there a one first individual with a Green Shell?

Eg. If no dog or wolf ever had red-hair (the 'What-If' concept is way beyond Eric's faculties) then how do we get a first dog with red hair?

If in the past a dog did have red hair then there is no novel change and red dogs have always been around.

IF red dogs have never been around then we have to start by mating two non-red dogs. The result? Dogs with colours that dogs have had.

But maybe we can wait for a novel mutation. So, after tens of thousands of matings we get our first novel mutant dog. Is it going to have red-hair? From what I have seen about mutants it is going to be either a very sick dog or a purple haired dog or a dog with six legs or a dog with two heads.

So we wait another 50,000 thousand years for a healthy red-haired mutant to appear. In the meantime mutant dogs of all types have been born - zebra striped dogs, dogs with ten ears, dogs with no eyes. Every conceivable combination of features.

But we continue producing dogs of every conceivable type until a red-hairied dog just 'appears'.

Then we can start on the long tail.

Now let's say some of the dogs we bred were fossilised after they died and later on someone digs around. WHat would we expect them to find (if the fossil record were representative) ? They would find mostly ordinary , normal, unmutated dogs. In other words no change in the fossil record. Perhaps a smattering of sickly mutated dogs.

One of the arguments that Rogue used was 'I (Rogue) have longer legs than either of my parents.' (and he might have included grandparents.). But the issue is - Does Rogue have longer legs than any other human ever had?

'There were giants in those days and heroes roamed the Earth.'

Magellan

rogue06

March 4th 2011, 04:51 PM

One of the arguments that Rogue used was 'I (Rogue) have longer legs than either of my parents.' (and he might have included grandparents.). But the issue is - Does Rogue have longer legs than any other human ever had?

64876
Not even 4:00 and I feel like I need a drink

sylas

March 4th 2011, 04:52 PM

It may be worth noting that in modern taxonomy, there are several different species of wolf.

Here is how "canis" is divided in the NCBI taxonomy database.

Canis adustus (side-striped jackal)
Canis aureus (golden jackal)
Canis himalayensis (Himalayan wolf)
Canis indica
Canis latrans (coyote)
Canis lupus (gray wolf)

Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican gray wolf)
Canis lupus chanco (Mongolian wolf)
Canis lupus dingo (dingo)
Canis lupus familiaris (dog)
Canis lupus hattai
Canis lupus hodophilax (Japanese wolf)
Canis lupus labradorius
Canis lupus laniger (Tibetan wolf)
Canis lupus lupus (Eurasian wolf)
Canis lupus mogollonensis (Mogollon mountain wolf)
Canis lupus pallipes (Indian wolf)
Canis lupus signatus (Iberian wolf)

Canis lycaon (eastern Canadian wolf)
Canis mesomelas (black-backed jackal)

Canis mesomelas elongae (eastern African black-backed jackal)

Canis rufus (red wolf)
Canis simensis (Ethiopian wolf)

What this means is that the gray wolf has a number of sub-species (divisions which do not rise to the level of being different species (yet)). The database gives twelve of these. One of them is domesticated dog -- canis lupus familiaris. That is, dogs are a variety of gray wolf, but still the same species.

The red wolf, however, is a different species.

The dividing line is somewhat ambiguous -- as we should expect; given that different species are something that come about gradually by accumulated divergence from a common origin.

It is possible to have cross breeding between different species, in this classification.

Cheers -- sylas

rogue06

March 4th 2011, 04:55 PM

Canis indica
:offtopic: That sounds an awful lot like some of the stuff I used to smoke

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 04:56 PM

Of course you've missed something. You've missed the accumulation of mutations resulting in differences between the two gene pools sufficient to prevent interbreeding. You find it hard to believe this can happen, but aside from expressions of personal incredulity you can't give a reason why you find it hard to believe. I've already presented evidence that the amount of differences in two different taxa—humans and chimps—is in accord with the amount of differences we should see given the estimated time since isolation times the mutation rate per generation.

Of course, you ignored all of that.

That should read - 'You missed the accumulation of differences ... '
When did the differences between Beetles start to accumulate? It didn't start in Year 2 or Year 3. You say by Year 500,000 'I missed it'.

Magellan

Carrikature

March 4th 2011, 05:14 PM

I am curious. Have you heard of Gregor Mendel?

sylas

March 4th 2011, 05:21 PM

That should read - 'You missed the accumulation of differences ... '
When did the differences between Beetles start to accumulate? It didn't start in Year 2 or Year 3. You say by Year 500,000 'I missed it'.

Differences show up in every generation, as has been mentioned already from time to time.

"Accumulate" means that each generation gets additional new differences.

That is, differences are always accumulating. There's no "start to accumulate".

This kind of question is the reason why I am sure you are a troll, not at all honest or sincere. But it's sort of fun to see how simple one can make an explanation while you still fail to get it. At this point, obviously deliberately; which is where the dishonesty shows up.

But I'm going to keep giving the explanations and answers themselves in all seriousness as if you were asking honest questions.

By the way, to get a bit technical again.

There are three basic mechanisms by which one generation is different from the previous.

1. Shuffling.

In sexual organisms, an individual has a genetic makeup that is a combination of their parents genomes, and the combination is a kind of random shuffle of the two.

If this was the only source of variation, then differences would not just accumulate indefinitely. There would be a limit to how much change can occur. You'd simply be rearranging the same basic pattern, and you wouldn't get new species from it.

2. Development.

An individual isn't completely determined by their genome. How an individual develops -- right from fertilization -- is an interaction of their genome and environment. As a simple example, improving diet gives a healthier children who grow to strong adults -- with no genetic change involved.

This change is not heritable, and so does not pass from generation to generation or accumulate, and so cannot give speciation either.

3. Mutation.

Copying of the six billion plus base pairs in our diploid genome is a biochemical process of fantastic accuracy. But not perfect accuracy. In every generation, in every individual, there are a few "errors" creeping into the copying process, meaning that a genome isn't just a shuffle of parent genomes, but is a shuffle plus a couple of random changes.

These random changes are measured. We observe them. In humans, each individual has of the order of 150 or so new mutations, not from either of their parents. Most of them make no difference to anything (in so-called "junk" DNA where the sequence makes no difference) and so can't contribute to speciation. But about 5 or 6 are in coding DNA, and this does make a difference of some kind, even if only in the sequence of a protein somewhere.

THESE are the changes that can accumulate without bound. Once such a change occurs, it becomes part of your genetic make up, and passed on to about half your children (those for whom that change is shuffled into the mix).

You won't even notice these mutations, for the most part. A mutation big enough to be noticed is usually a bad thing, and unlikely to be passed on through the generations. But they are there, and they are measured, and they accumulate. Each generation is just a little bit different in the mix of available genes being passed to the next generation, and this change, although nearly always negligible between two successive generations, becomes greater, and greater, and greater, as the generations go by.

In enough time, the accumulated differences are such that the new generations are now radically different from the generation you started with. At no point can you say "here the generations became different". All you have is accumulated tiny change, leading in enough time to large change.

And it cannot be emphasized enough. This is measured. We see it occurring, and the extent of accumulated change can be used and IS used to figure out how long it is since two populations diverged from a common source.

Cheers -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 05:28 PM

The problem I have centres around novel changes - changes which have never occurred before.
Why do you have a problem here, Magellan? Novel changes happen all the time; they're called mutations. Nylonase is only one famous example; there are numerous others.

But even if you were not given examples, do you have any reason to doubt that "novel changes"—mutations—occur? Do you really think that there never any copying errors in all the uncountable quadrillions of replications in germline cells that have ever occurred?

Eg If no Beetle has ever had a green shell then how does a Green Shelled Beetle first appear?

If something never happened, how could it ever have happened? Is that your question?

Is there a one first individual with a Green Shell?

Maybe, maybe not. It could be that there are half a dozen mutations which all cause a green shell. They could, and probably would have, arisen independently in different individuals. Was there some particular beetle that was the first one to possess all half a dozen mutations? Maybe, maybe not. Does it make a difference either way? In a realistic population of a million individuals, where dozens to hundreds of individuals are all the result of the same mating, it could be that there were two hundred individuals in one generation which all were born with the same half-dozen mutations more or less simultaneously.

Why would it make a difference to the appearance of green beetles whether there was one "first" green beetle or a hundred "first" green beetles?

Eg. If no dog or wolf ever had red-hair (the 'What-If' concept is way beyond Eric's faculties) then how do we get a first dog with red hair?

Magellan, you're the one with the problem with hypotheticals, not me. But it's the same inane question: if X never happened, how could X ever happen?

If we ever did have a mutation for red hair, then what's the problem with there now being red-haired dogs?

If in the past a dog did have red hair then there is no novel change and red dogs have always been around.

Those aren't the only two choices. If there was never a mutation that caused dogs to have day-glo green hair, then there will be no dogs with day-glo green hair. If we see dogs with red hair today, how much of a stretch is it to assume that at some point there was a mutation for red hair in dogs?

These concepts are so basic, so fundamental, it's hard to even decide how to explain them. It's like explaining to someone why it gets dark out after the sun goes down.

IF red dogs have never been around then we have to start by mating two non-red dogs. The result? Dogs with colours that dogs have had.

Your IF is wrong. Why on earth would anyone think there have never been red-haired dogs when there are red-haired dogs now? Do you honestly have difficulty imagining (speaking of problems with what-ifs) that at some point in the history of dogs (which ultimately goes back to the beginning of life on earth, if universal common descent is correct), there arose a mutation for red hair?

But maybe we can wait for a novel mutation. So, after tens of thousands of matings we get our first novel mutant dog.
But you get at least one mutation per individual dog per generation. So we have to wait maybe one mating to get a novel mutation out of the entire world-wide population of dogs. Where's the problem here, Magellan?

Is it going to have red-hair? From what I have seen about mutants it is going to be either a very sick dog or a purple haired dog or a dog with six legs or a dog with two heads.

Where are you getting this stupid idea? Why do you think it's more likely to get the mutation that would result in six legs than in what is likely a single mutation (which is at worst neutral, not catastrophically deleterious like a mutation resulting in six legs) causing red hair? The vast majority of all mutations are selectively neutral.

So we wait another 50,000 thousand years for a healthy red-haired mutant to appear.
Why? Why would we even have to wait at all for a healthy red-haired mutant? You seem to have this notion, common to many creationists, that mutations happen one at a time, and you can't get another one until the first one spreads throughout the population.

In the meantime mutant dogs of all types have been born - zebra striped dogs, dogs with ten ears, dogs with no eyes. Every conceivable combination of features.

Why? What makes you think every single conceivable mutation must happen? While it's true that every single nucleotide may mutate somewhere in the gene pool every generation, that doesn't mean every single trait must appear.

We've been through this many times already. Where is the requirement that dogs with no legs and dogs with kilometer-long legs must happen?

But we continue producing dogs of every conceivable type until a red-hairied dog just 'appears'.

Why? Explain why "every single conceivable type" of dog must occur before we get a single, innocuous, selectively-neutral mutation that results in red hair? Can you explain why you think this is the case? Do you think a single mutation causing red hair is somehow the least likely possible mutation? Why would you think that?

Then we can start on the long tail.

How long of a wait is that going to be? Even in a single litter of dogs, some have tails longer than others. Out of each litter, you breed together the ones with the longest tails. How many generations will it take for tails to start getting longer? One? Two? Half a dozen?

You might see a significant increase in average tail length in a dozen generations: a bit more than a decade.

Now let's say some of the dogs we bred were fossilised after they died and later on someone digs around. WHat would we expect them to find (if the fossil record were representative) ? They would find mostly ordinary , normal, unmutated dogs. In other words no change in the fossil record. Perhaps a smattering of sickly mutated dogs.

But some of those fossils would have longer tails than others, wouldn't they? If there were some selective advantage to longer tails, we would expect to see, over time, fossils with an increasing longer average tail length.

Just as with horses, where leg-length confers a selective advantage in outrunning predators. Over fifty million years, we see a significant increase in leg length in fossil horses.

What, exactly, is the problem with this?

One of the arguments that Rogue used was 'I (Rogue) have longer legs than either of my parents.' (and he might have included grandparents.). But the issue is - Does Rogue have longer legs than any other human ever had?

Some human might, every few generations. But all that really matters is that the average leg length increases. H. sapiens certainly has a longer average leg length than, say, A. afarensis. Is it that difficult to see that if there is a selective advantage to longer legs, over time you'll see an increase in leg-length? Because individuals with longer legs, being more successful at e.g. outrunning predators (or, conversely, running down prey), more frequently survive to reproduce, producing larger numbers of longer-legged descendants, until over time the average leg length increases.

What's so difficult about this concept?

Sparko

March 4th 2011, 05:31 PM

magellan, dog breeders breed animals to enhance "mutations" - for example, say to get a dog with a longer tail, they would take dogs of certain breeds and keep breeding the pups who had longer tails. Then take the offspring of that generation and breed the ones with the longest tails, and so on and eventually they end up with a dog that has a tail much longer than the original dog. Or they bring out unique characteristics by crossbreeding two different breeds, like maybe a poodle with an irish setter and then they could select for curly red hair, the poodle genes supply the curly hair and the irish setter supplies the red color (google "irish doodle"). That way they can introduce new characteristics that neither original breed had. This is documented by dog breeders, so we KNOW we can do such things. So why can't it occur naturally? Note: I am not trying to convince you of macro evolution.

Your scenario is very simple and limited. You set up parameters where there can be no change, then you present a conclusion where there is change and expect others to tell you how. There is no way to tell you how because your scenario is senseless.

I already gave you an example of how you could get a dog breed with curly red hair. What if I set up a scenario that said:

1. There are 10 white poodles who have 1 pup per generation.
2. They do not interbreed with any other dog breeds.
3. In 100 years there is a poodle with red hair.

Well I just set up a situation where barring a very unique mutation in one generation there could never be any red haired poodles. Then I ask you how it happened. duh. It wouldn't have happened. That scenario is as mixed up as yours was. It has no solution unless I make one up.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 05:32 PM

The red wolf, however, is a different species.

I seem to remember reading an article in Scientific American a few years back, arguing that the red wolf is actually a hybrid of gray wolf and coyote. Ah, yes: the January 1996 issue (which, sadly, is behind a paywall, but you can download the article for a few bucks if you're interested). Which is a problem for red wolves, because as hybrids they aren't protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Faid

March 4th 2011, 05:51 PM

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 05:57 PM

I am curious. Have you heard of Gregor Mendel?

It rings a bell. Wasn't Mendel's son a composer?

Magellan

sylas

March 4th 2011, 05:58 PM

I seem to remember reading an article in Scientific American a few years back, arguing that the red wolf is actually a hybrid of gray wolf and coyote. Ah, yes: the January 1996 issue (which, sadly, is behind a paywall, but you can download the article for a few bucks if you're interested). Which is a problem for red wolves, because as hybrids they aren't protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Yes; this kind of thing is why I said:

The dividing line is somewhat ambiguous -- as we should expect; given that different species are something that come about gradually by accumulated divergence from a common origin.

It is possible to have cross breeding between different species, in this classification.

Had a quick look. It seems that the debate is as to whether the red wolf is a recent hybrid, or a distinct species. By the way, a hybrid between two closely related species is one way to jump start a new population that may in time become a new species in its own right with a long independent lineage. This is one of the possibilities for the origin of red wolves; an recent hybrid is another. As noted previously, speciation is not limited to the simplest level account I am describing.

In any case, accumulated change is a part of the process; and it is also sufficient in itself for speciation. This makes it the starting point to learn about it.

Cheers -- sylas

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 06:10 PM

If something never happened, how could it ever have happened? Is that your question?

Magellan, you're the one with the problem with hypotheticals, not me. But it's the same inane question: if X never happened, how could X ever happen?

If we ever did have a mutation for red hair, then what's the problem with there now being red-haired dogs?

If we see dogs with red hair today, how much of a stretch is it to assume that at some point there was a mutation for red hair in dogs?

That garbage would try the patience of a Saint - so I must have a bright future.

Here's the baby talk version of what I was saying-

If, before today, there has never been a dog with red hair or a wolf with red hair or a furry beast with four legs that goes 'Woof, woof' with red hair then how in future do we breed a dog with red hair from mating pairs that have (say) brown hair?

Magellan

sylas

March 4th 2011, 06:21 PM

If, before today, there has never been a dog with red hair or a wolf with red hair or a furry beast with four legs that goes 'Woof, woof' with red hair then how in future do we breed a dog with red hair from mating pairs that have (say) brown hair?

We apply artificial selection. In each population, we breed only the ones that have a more reddish kind of brown. This works, because "brown" and "red" are not a simply clear binary division, but areas within a continuous spectrum of shades, where you can EASILY get from one to another by small accumulated change.

This same process has been used many many times by animal breeders to give rise to new varieties that are easily distinguished from an original population.

Minor caveat. Artificial breeding tends to reduce the variation within a population. This means that a lot of the change is actually from stripping out genes you don't want rather than waiting for the mutations that tend in the direction you want to go. This means you aren't getting new species, usually. A viable species really needs a good dose of variability within the population, and so you can't just get your new species as quickly as you can get a new variety by breeding.

But it does demonstrate the vacuity of thinking you can't get from brown to red by small steps. Of course you can.

Cheers -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 06:51 PM

That should read - 'You missed the accumulation of differences ... '
No it shouldn't, because that's all a mutation is: a difference between the parent genome and daughter genomes. I'm simply not going to accede to your request that I completely remove all terms used in biology just to make you happy, Magellan.

When did the differences between Beetles start to accumulate? It didn't start in Year 2 or Year 3. You say by Year 500,000 'I missed it'.

They (most likely) started to accumulate in the first generation. Complex eukaryotes like beetles have genomes of billions of base-pairs. The chances that a germ cell will have zero mutations out of all those base pairs is remote.

One of your principal problems, Magellan, is that you seem to have seriously underestimated the mutation rate. I've already given you figures for mutation rates in humans, which are fairly typical for complex eukaryotes. Such rates mean that for large populations like the human population, essentially every single nucleotide in the entire human genome mutates somewhere in the population at least once every single generation.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 07:03 PM

It rings a bell. Wasn't Mendel's son a composer?

Magellan

No. Mendel's ohn was a composer.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 07:05 PM

Yes; this kind of thing is why I said:

The dividing line is somewhat ambiguous -- as we should expect; given that different species are something that come about gradually by accumulated divergence from a common origin.

It is possible to have cross breeding between different species, in this classification.

I can't tell you how many times I've told Magellan that this fuzziness and indistinctness of the boundaries of species is a prediction of evolutionary theory and massively contradicts the predictions of special creation.

Had a quick look. It seems that the debate is as to whether the red wolf is a recent hybrid, or a distinct species. By the way, a hybrid between two closely related species is one way to jump start a new population that may in time become a new species in its own right with a long independent lineage. This is one of the possibilities for the origin of red wolves; an recent hybrid is another. As noted previously, speciation is not limited to the simplest level account I am describing.

It's also interesting that one of the ancestors of the hybrid is hypothesized to be a now-extinct subspecies of gray wolf.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 07:10 PM

That garbage would try the patience of a Saint - so I must have a bright future.

It's certainly trying my patience, Magellan. Why you keep asking, "If something never happened, how could it ever happen?"

What's the point of asking such an inane question other than to try everyone's patience?

Here's the baby talk version of what I was saying-

If, before today, there has never been a dog with red hair or a wolf with red hair or a furry beast with four legs that goes 'Woof, woof' with red hair then how in future do we breed a dog with red hair from mating pairs that have (say) brown hair.

We don't. That's how. If a mutation never appears that confers a particular hair color, then we can't breed dogs with that hair color.

Is that what you're asking? That's why there are no dog breeds with day-glo green hair. There has never been a mutation for day-glo green hair.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 07:12 PM

We apply artificial selection. In each population, we breed only the ones that have a more reddish kind of brown. This works, because "brown" and "red" are not a simply clear binary division, but areas within a continuous spectrum of shades, where you can EASILY get from one to another by small accumulated change.

That's not really what he's asking, Sylas. He's asking, if a mutation conferring a particular trait never appears, how do we breed for that trait?

The answer, of course, is that we don't.

sylas

March 4th 2011, 07:20 PM

That's not really what he's asking, Sylas. He's asking, if a mutation conferring a particular trait never appears, how do we breed for that trait?

The answer, of course, is that we don't.

Ah. So in other words, a species can't just be anything at all you imagine. No surprise there, and nothing of relevance to understanding explanations of how species DO arise.

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 07:43 PM

It's certainly trying my patience, Magellan. Why you keep asking, "If something never happened, how could it ever happen?"

What's the point of asking such an inane question other than to try everyone's patience?

We don't. That's how. If a mutation never appears that confers a particular hair color, then we can't breed dogs with that hair color.

Is that what you're asking? That's why there are no dog breeds with day-glo green hair. There has never been a mutation for day-glo green hair.

Sparko asked.

Magellan

magellan004

March 4th 2011, 07:52 PM

No it shouldn't, because that's all a mutation is: a difference between the parent genome and daughter genomes. I'm simply not going to accede to your request that I completely remove all terms used in biology just to make you happy, Magellan.

They (most likely) started to accumulate in the first generation.

Then Sylas may have missed a step -
Next step is three years later, with 10 beetles on a shrub. unless you now claim that Beetles mate once every three years.

So let's go back to Step One - 10 Beetles on a bush, all different, all can interbreed. I suggest we settle on one generation per year - but of course you can overrule that. It won't make any difference.

Next step?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 08:23 PM

Sparko asked.

Sparko didn't ask how we breed for traits that never existed in the first place, Magellan. That was your invention.

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 08:30 PM

Then Sylas may have missed a step - unless you now claim that Beetles mate once every three years.

They're your beetles, Magellan. We don't even know what species they are. The point is that mutations are always accumulating. Children differ from parents in many places throughout their genome.

You don't have to wait for mutations to start appearing.

So let's go back to Step One - 10 Beetles on a bush, all different, all can interbreed. I suggest we settle on one generation per year - but of course you can overrule that. It won't make any difference.

Which means, why are you bothering to count in years? Why don't you count in generations, since that actually makes sense. A housefly generation is a lot shorter than a human generation, so why would you use years?

Next step?

Next step for what, Magellan? What part do you think is missing? We have many, many generations during which many, many mutations accumulate. Are we there yet? Do we have to go through each generation? Produce a list that looks like this?

Generation 1: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 2: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 3: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 4: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 5: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 1: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 7: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 8: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 9: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 10: many mutations accumulate.
...
a hundred thousand iterations...
Generation 100,001: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 100,002: many mutations accumulate.
Generation 100,003: many mutations accumulate.

Are you ready to discuss reproductive isolation? Or do we still need to get clear how mutations continue to accumulate over time?

Every time we get to the next step, you say, "Whoa, wait; we're not there yet. You missed a few hundred thousand steps."

Sparko

March 4th 2011, 08:30 PM

Then Sylas may have missed a step - unless you now claim that Beetles mate once every three years.

So let's go back to Step One - 10 Beetles on a bush, all different, all can interbreed. I suggest we settle on one generation per year - but of course you can overrule that. It won't make any difference.

Next step?

Magellan

You act as if there were just one gene that determined color, but it doesn't have to be. There are various combinations of genes that can determine color. For example, perhaps there are two genes that determine the color in the beetle, one that creates a red color and one that creates a green color, they combine in a cell and the result is brown. Perhaps over many generations the red gene gets weaker and allows the green one to become more dominant.

Did you know that all of the various human hair colors are controlled by only two types of melanin? That includes blonde, brown, black and RED. The various levels of these two melanins in combination create the various shades of color in people. (this also answers how you could get a red dog from a non-red wolf)

ericmurphy

March 4th 2011, 08:47 PM

I think one of Magellan's many problems with understanding how evolution happens is that he assumes a 1 mutation = 1 trait relationship that simply doesn't exist. While it's true that some traits are indeed the result of a single mutation, most are not. Also, while sometimes there's a clear dominant-recessive relationship where heterozygous (uh oh, I can hear another complaint already about "jargon") individuals express the trait coded for by the dominant allele (another complaint) sometimes the resultant trait is intermediate between the dominant and recessive conditions.

Astra49

March 4th 2011, 08:52 PM

THESE are the changes that can accumulate without bound. Once such a change occurs, it becomes part of your genetic make up, and passed on to about half your children (those for whom that change is shuffled into the mix). You won't even notice these mutations, for the most part. A mutation big enough to be noticed is usually a bad thing, and unlikely to be passed on through the generations. But they are there, and they are measured, and they accumulate. Each generation is just a little bit different in the mix of available genes being passed to the next generation, and this change, although nearly always negligible between two successive generations, becomes greater, and greater, and greater, as the generations go by. In enough time, the accumulated differences are such that the new generations are now radically different from the generation you started with. At no point can you say "here the generations became different". All you have is accumulated tiny change, leading in enough time to large change. And it cannot be emphasized enough. This is measured. We see it occurring, and the extent of accumulated change can be used and IS used to figure out how long it is since two populations diverged from a common source. Cheers -- sylas

The above post is articulate, it is easily read and easy to comprehend from a lay persons point of view.

Thank you:yes:

sylas

March 4th 2011, 09:02 PM

Then Sylas may have missed a step - unless you now claim that Beetles mate once every three years.

That is precisely what I was assuming. I don't know much about beetle life cycles, but it varies a heck of a lot between species. For one example, the life cycle of the stag beetle is probably about four to six years. (link (http://maria.fremlin.de/stagbeetles/lifecycle.html))

The first step is the first generation. That's what we've all been saying.

So here again, let's pretend you are not a troll, and give a simple answer, and see if you get it this time. Here we go with that...

Next step?

The next step is the next generation, of course. It's like building a cathedral stone by stone.

As this goes on, over time, each generation is different from the previous, and there is no limit to how different they can be from the starting point.

In the simple case we are considering, another useful step to consider is that the shrub on which these beetles are living dies, and they move to the shrubs nearby, and thereafter tend to mate only with their neighbours in the same shrub.

(That is, there develops some kind of separation into two groups, which no longer mix with each other. This too, can in practice arise gradually or in all kinds of subtle ways, but how it happens doesn't matter. Anything that means there's little geneflow between the two groups will do.)

What happens with each following step is that the next generation is effectively the same as the previous, but is actually tending to be a tiny little bit more different every time, leading to huge differences with enough time.

Because there are two populations doing this, they are also tending to be more and more different from each other, until in the end they can't interbreed anymore even if they tried; and you have two unambiguous species.

There's no special unique species forming step here. There's just the same step of getting a little bit of difference in a new generation, repeated hundreds of thousands of times. When there is a separation of populations and no mixing of genes between them, that is generally going to be enough to ensure you have two different species.

Cheers -- sylas

lao tzu

March 5th 2011, 12:41 AM

Evolution in Black and White (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Evolution-in-Black-and-White.html)

[From February, 2009]

The alternative color forms of some animals are providing new insights into how animals adapt and evolve

By Sean B. Carroll

Recently, Michael Nachman and his collaborators at the University of Arizona have undertaken detailed field and genetic studies of rock pocket mice. They have found that the mice interbreed with mice from other habitats and migrate between rock types. The mice are clearly one species, not two. So what makes fur black or light? Just a few differences in the code of a single gene. This simple basis of inheritance means that the origin of black mice from light-colored parents happened in just one or a very small number of mutational steps.

magellan004

March 5th 2011, 12:51 AM

That is precisely what I was assuming. I don't know much about beetle life cycles, but it varies a heck of a lot between species. For one example, the life cycle of the stag beetle is probably about four to six years. (link (http://maria.fremlin.de/stagbeetles/lifecycle.html))

The first step is the first generation. That's what we've all been saying.

So here again, let's pretend you are not a troll, and give a simple answer, and see if you get it this time. Here we go with that...

The next step is the next generation, of course. It's like building a cathedral stone by stone.

As this goes on, over time, each generation is different from the previous, and there is no limit to how different they can be from the starting point.

In the simple case we are considering, another useful step to consider is that the shrub on which these beetles are living dies, and they move to the shrubs nearby, and thereafter tend to mate only with their neighbours in the same shrub.

(That is, there develops some kind of separation into two groups, which no longer mix with each other. This too, can in practice arise gradually or in all kinds of subtle ways, but how it happens doesn't matter. Anything that means there's little geneflow between the two groups will do.)

What happens with each following step is that the next generation is effectively the same as the previous, but is actually tending to be a tiny little bit more different every time, leading to huge differences with enough time.

Because there are two populations doing this, they are also tending to be more and more different from each other, until in the end they can't interbreed anymore even if they tried; and you have two unambiguous species.

There's no special unique species forming step here. There's just the same step of getting a little bit of difference in a new generation, repeated hundreds of thousands of times. When there is a separation of populations and no mixing of genes between them, that is generally going to be enough to ensure you have two different species.

Cheers -- sylas

Assuming that you are not a dunce, I'll reply to your post in more detail when I have some time.

I'd like to check on the meaning of an expression first. I'm asking you but my question is really addressed to you, Eric or anyone who thinks they know how this stuff is supposed to work.

This was from a few pages ago (around Post 472) -

The dividing line is somewhat ambiguous -- as we should expect; given that different species are something that come about gradually by accumulated divergence from a common origin.

It is possible to have cross breeding between different species, in this classification.
I can't tell you how many times I've told Magellan that this fuzziness and indistinctness of the boundaries of species is a prediction of evolutionary theory

1. What is the 'Boundary to Species?'
2. By 'cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'? If fuzziness does not mean this then can you please explain .

One more question -
(I am 99.99% sure of the answer but I' checking anyway.)
Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?
What I mean is - If we had two organisms available for testing can we run a test which will yield either 'These two can have a child' or 'These two cannot have a child'?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 12:59 AM

Assuming that you are not a dunce, I'll reply to your post in more detail when I have some time.

I thought there was some comment earlier about Magellan showing admirable restraint in not returning insults.

I'd like to check on the meaning of an expression first. I'm asking you but my question is really addressed to you, Eric or anyone who thinks they know how this stuff is supposed to work.

But the answer is, of course, irrelevant to you.

This was from a few pages ago (around Post 472) -

1. What is the 'Boundary to Species?'
What does the statement from me you're quoting say, Magellan? Do you understand the meaning of words?

The definition of "species" is not well-defined, for reasons that have been given to you endlessly.

2. By 'cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'? If fuzziness does not mean this then can you please explain .

It means that it is frequently difficult to determine conspecificity, something else that has been repeated to you endlessly.

And every time you try to make the point that "species" is not a well-defined concept, you strengthen the case for common descent and weaken the case for special creation.

One more question -
(I am 99.99% sure of the answer but I' checking anyway.)
Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?
Yes.

What I mean is - If we had two organisms available for testing can we run a test which will yield either 'These two can have a child' or 'These two cannot have a child'?

Yes.

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 01:42 AM

Wait for Magellan to equivocate between individual organisms and groups of organisms.

And Magellan: do you still think if you can show there's ambiguity in the meaning of the term "species," that that's a problem for evolutionary theory?

Theostudent

March 5th 2011, 01:43 AM

phaedrus

March 5th 2011, 02:00 AM

Assuming that you are not a dunce, I'll reply to your post in more detail when I have some time.

I'd like to check on the meaning of an expression first. I'm asking you but my question is really addressed to you, Eric or anyone who thinks they know how this stuff is supposed to work.

This was from a few pages ago (around Post 472) -

1. What is the 'Boundary to Species?'
2. By 'cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'? If fuzziness does not mean this then can you please explain .

One more question -
(I am 99.99% sure of the answer but I' checking anyway.)
Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?
What I mean is - If we had two organisms available for testing can we run a test which will yield either 'These two can have a child' or 'These two cannot have a child'?

Magellan

You are still confusing individuals and populations. If you take male animal A and attempt to mate it with female animal B and the offspring they produce is fertile, then you can be reasonably confident they are of the same species. However, if they don't produce offspring you don't know anything much. They could be an infertile pair of the same species, they could be a pair of the same but splitting species, or they could belong to two distinct species. You see fertility statistics are between groups.The further apart genetically two groups are, the lower their interbreeding fertility rates will be until eventually there will be no fertility between any two members of the two groups. Then, we can be sure they are now two different species.

I also note with a wry smile how you keep shifting the goal posts without properly acknowledging the good explanations you have received about previous issues. You asked about 'one animal changing into another'. Both sylas and I explained it. There was no comment from you about what was wrong with our e4xplanations. Instead, you introduced the 'new' issue of novel features arising, one we have addressed with you many times before. You have been answered with examples. Still nothing. Now you want to know why a elephant can't produce offspring with a turtle. Really?

sylas

March 5th 2011, 02:09 AM

1. What is the 'Boundary to Species?'

The attempt to define a species is an attempt to characterize a group of related organisms, so that there is some way to identify whether or not a given individual is a member of that species, or not. The "boundary" is the conceptual line between individual in the species, and individuals not in the species.

There are a range of attempts to give a simple definition of how to make this division. One of the most well known is the "biological species concept".

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance.

-- from Biological Species Concept (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml) at Evolution 101, UC Berkeley

This is not the only way to try and define a species, but it is best known and most common. There are others.

The key point to grasp is that there can be no possible way to give a clear objective definition, because of the fact that species can and do form gradually over time. There is always bound to be a gray area where you cannot objectively say -- this group now defines a separate species.

The secondary point to grasp is that the notion of species is, however, a sensible one. Living things ARE naturally classified into species, because there IS a tendency over time for groups to form that fit closely to the above definition. This is a consequence of how evolution works, with cumulative change over time. The biological species concepts works (for sexual species) because of two facts of life:

Living things mate with others resulting in a mix or shuffle of inherited characteristics.
Living things that have too much genetic difference cannot and do not give viable offspring.

There are interesting examples of where a biological species get fuzzy.

Distinct groups often can and do occasionally interbreed with viable offspring, but "prefer" not to do so. Often such cross breeding has much reduced fertility. For example, lions and tigers can interbreed, but do not do so in the wild. The offspring is often infertile. Similarly horses and donkeys. But not cats and dogs -- they are too different to mate successfully.
A "ring species" can occur when you have a large group of organisms, over a distributed range, so that individuals close together in the range interbreed without restriction, but that individuals that are at far ends of the range do not, even if the opportunity arises. The classic example, is a range of gulls (Larus gulls) which are found in a range right around the North Pole. They form a continuous range, the two ends of with are clearly distinguished and would be considered separate species. What is interesting is that the two ends of this range meet again in Europe, hence making a "ring". In Europe, they locally appear as two easily distinguished and non-interbreeding groups (hence, species); and yet there is a continuous gene flow around the range from one of the European species right back to the other.

Examples like this are often considered incipient speciation; that is, the kind of half way conditions that arise as a new species is forming.

None of this makes any difference to the explanations we have been giving of how you get new species over time. They merely illustrate the fuzzy conditions that show up when you are somewhere between having two clearly identifiable species, and where they aren't yet clearly identifiable.

2. By 'cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'? If fuzziness does not mean this then can you please explain .

Yes, that is what I mean. A lion can mate with a tiger. A horse with a donkey. A coyote with a wolf.

Only the last of these three cases, however, is being seriously considered as meaning they are the same species. The first doesn't happen in nature. The second is very usually with sterile offspring. The third, however, may be a case of subspecies, and discussion of what difference this makes gets very technical quite quickly.

One more question -
(I am 99.99% sure of the answer but I' checking anyway.)
Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?
What I mean is - If we had two organisms available for testing can we run a test which will yield either 'These two can have a child' or 'These two cannot have a child'?

Not really. Being able to have a child, and not being able to have a child, is also not a simple binary classification in real life. What you get in real life is that some individuals are interfertile, and others are not, and others are in between, with a reduced capacity to interbreed, or reduced inter-fertility.

You can try and artificial insemination process or an "in vitrio" experiment. (Test tube baby). This only deals with half the difference, because in nature they also have to recognize each other and mate, as well as get a fertile result.

Working with individuals also confounds the issues, because single individuals may be infertile, or tend to have miscarriages, without being any the less a member of the species. Speciation is defined in terms of a group of organisms that are all interbreeding with each other, and whether they should be considered the same species as another group all interbreeding with each other.

------

We are at this point going into some of the details of biology, well beyond the simple question of how a species can form.

Does this mean that the original question is now resolved, and you do understand the processes by which new species can form, according to evolutionary theory?

Cheers -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 02:29 AM

Does this mean that the original question is now resolved, and you do understand the processes by which new species can form, according to evolutionary theory?

Cheers -- sylas

You cannot make a man understand something when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.

magellan004

March 5th 2011, 05:28 AM

You cannot make a man understand something when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.

Amen - case in point -

'By cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'?

Eric - 'It means that it is frequently difficult to determine conspecificity.'
Sylas - Yes, that is what I mean.

Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?

Eric - 'Yes.'
Sylas - 'Not really.'

Magellan

Roy

March 5th 2011, 06:12 AM

A brief interjection:

I am curious. Have you heard of Gregor Mendel?
It rings a bell. Wasn't Mendel's son a composer?No. Mendel's ohn was a composer.

Eric, I do believe you have just been outwitted by magellan004.

As a penance, I suggest you adopt the epithet "Clownshoes" until magellan004 writes something sufficiently deserving that the by-name being returned...

unless you now claim that Beetles mate once every three years.

30 seconds of Googling illuminated that generation times for beetles can range from a few weeks: (http://www.beanbeetles.org/handbook/#GT)The elapsed time from newly laid eggs to the emergence of adult beetles varies between bean beetle strains and environmental conditions. Previous studies indicate that temperature and relative humidity (Howe and Currie 1964, Schoof 1941) are the most important variables influencing generation times (egg to adult) when beetles are raised on preferred host beans. Within a limited range, increasing temperature will decrease the generation time. In our laboratory, we have observed generation times as short as 3-4 weeks...to several decades: (http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/chapters/chapter_12.shtml)Many recorded cases of prolonged of life cycle are in Coleoptera. The wood boring beetle, Eburia quadrigeminata (Cerambycidae), when feeding in dry wood, may have its development so greatly retarded that adults emerge from furniture and flooring many years after manufacture or installation. Delayed emergence of E. quadrigeminata was discovered from a birch bookcase 40 years old (Jaques 1918).

A 'lucky' escape, methinks.

Roy

Faid

March 5th 2011, 09:10 AM

Amen - case in point -

'By cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'?

Eric - 'It means that it is frequently difficult to determine conspecificity.'
Sylas - Yes, that is what I mean. Just in case anyone had any doubts as to whether Mags is dishonest, here is the rest of Sylas' quote that he omitted:

Yes, that is what I mean. A lion can mate with a tiger. A horse with a donkey. A coyote with a wolf.

Only the last of these three cases, however, is being seriously considered as meaning they are the same species. The first doesn't happen in nature. The second is very usually with sterile offspring. The third, however, may be a case of subspecies, and discussion of what difference this makes gets very technical quite quickly.

In other words, "it is frequently difficult to determine conspecifity".

What a weasel you are, Mags.

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 11:21 AM

Amen - case in point -

That's a strange thing for you to agree with, Magellan.

'By cross breeding between species' do you mean something like 'One individual in one group can mate with one individual in another group'?

Eric - 'It means that it is frequently difficult to determine conspecificity.'
Sylas - Yes, that is what I mean.

And you still can't understand it. Because your worldview depends on your not understanding.

Do we know the reason why one organism cannot mate with (the opposite sex of) another organism?

Eric - 'Yes.'
Sylas - 'Not really.'

We're answering different questions, Magellan. Why is that? Because you continue to equivocate between individual organisms and entire species. Can we tell if two different organisms are interfertile? Yes. It's not too hard to figure out how we can tell.

Can we tell if two different populations are interfertile? Always, or never? No.

Are you still under the misapprehension that showing there's ambiguity in the definition of "species"—the same ambiguity that results in Sylas's and my answers being different—is a problem for evolutionary theory? You've been doing this for months, Magellan, and the more you do it, the more you confirm evolutionary theory and disprove special creation.

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 11:23 AM

A brief interjection:

Eric, I do believe you have just been outwitted by magellan004.

I don't think so. Re-read my response.

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 11:28 AM

Just in case anyone had any doubts as to whether Mags is dishonest, here is the rest of Sylas' quote that he omitted:

Yes, that is what I mean. A lion can mate with a tiger. A horse with a donkey. A coyote with a wolf.

Only the last of these three cases, however, is being seriously considered as meaning they are the same species. The first doesn't happen in nature. The second is very usually with sterile offspring. The third, however, may be a case of subspecies, and discussion of what difference this makes gets very technical quite quickly.

In other words, "it is frequently difficult to determine conspecifity".

What a weasel you are, Mags.

It is far more important to Magellan to somehow pretend that his opponents disagree with each other than it is to actually support his own argument. We've been telling him for months that "species" is an ambiguous concept, and that evolutionary theory predicts it will be an ambiguous concept, whereas special creation predicts species should be well-defined. You'd think that would make him steer clear of the whole topic. But instead, he tries to get his opponents to give different answers to the same poorly-defined question.

As has been pointed out before, it is far more important to Magellan to show that science is somehow wrong than it is for him to actually prove evolutionary theory specifically is wrong.

Tiggy

March 5th 2011, 11:34 AM

Magellan is an import from a site called Evolution Fairy Tales (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php). Your suggestion that his ignorance is fixable may be true in theory, but ... in practice, not so much. No need to register. They ban anyone referencing TalkOrigins, and you've already let slip you're a contributor.

They also have a policy of banning those they call "time wasters." I suspect Mags is deliberately taking advantage of TWeb's policy to allow such disruption. Say what you will about him, but the pages and pages of disturbed electrons from his stay here show him to be a formidable troll. He's actually quite clever, outside of science. He shows a good grasp of grammar and excellent writing skills when he applies himself. His ability to soak up vitriol without returning it is entirely commendable, as well.

As ever, Jesse

Hey Clownshoes, is this true? It would explain a lot. Those mooks at Evolution Fairy Tales, especially Ikester, make turnips look like Nobel laureates.

What is your user name at EFT?

- T

Roy

March 5th 2011, 01:11 PM

I don't think so. Re-read my response.

You mean the one which suggests that Mendelssohn only contains one ess?

Roy

magellan004

March 5th 2011, 05:35 PM

I went back to check on where we were at with the Beetles example. I had asked Eric to explain step-by-step how 'Two parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.'
I wanted to know how we could start with a parent pair (of some animal) and end up with say, a group of elephants and a group of camels; or a group of Brown Beetles and a group of Green Beetles.
This is part of what Sylas said in Post 461 -
Differences show up in every generation, as has been mentioned already from time to time.
"Accumulate" means that each generation gets additional new differences.
That is, differences are always accumulating. There's no "start to accumulate".
You won't even notice these mutations, for the most part. A mutation big enough to be noticed is usually a bad thing, and unlikely to be passed on through the generations. But they are there, and they are measured, and they accumulate.
In enough time, the accumulated differences are such that the new generations are now radically different from the generation you started with. At no point can you say "here the generations became different". All you have is accumulated tiny change, leading in enough time to large change.
And it cannot be emphasized enough. This is measured. We see it occurring, and the extent of accumulated change can be used and IS used to figure out how long it is since two populations diverged from a common source.
The last paragraph is of course the ‘End-Game’ – Having worked out whether or not speciation is possible do we actually see it taking place?
First we need to deal with the question of whether Speciation is possible and if it is possible, under what circumstances could it arise? Looking back over the Beetle discussion made me realise that there was a lot of confusion about terminology, groups , individuals etc. so I am going to try to be clearer.

Let’s take a Group of Individual Brown Beetles living on a shrub at Year Tx and which can all interbreed. I want to know whether it is conceptually possible that at a later date (Year Ty) we could end up with two groups of Beetles where a number of individuals of one group could not interbreed with one or a number of Beetles in the other group. In particular-

If we start off with Group A of Brown Beetles where each individual in that group can interbreed with all other individual Brown Beetles – can and how would we later find that we have two Groups – Brown Beetles and Green Beetles where no individual Green Beetle can interbreed with an individual Brown Beetle?
Recently I did say that it was impossible but Lao Tzu pointed out one situation where it could be possible.
I am going to assume that it is possible for a child to be born with a feature, a character, a difference, a variation, a mutation, a change that neither of the child’s parents had. In particular I will assume that it is possible that a pair of Non-Green Parents can give birth to a Green Beetle and that any particular individual Beetle is either Green or Not Green (Green is measurable and detectable).

Let’s say there has been a geographic split between Brown Beetles into two groups – Left Group and Right Group. Right Group is always made up only of Brown Beetles.
We know that there must have been a first child Beetle born with a difference that meant it that was unable to breed with any Brown Beetle. We know this because
1. There would have been a time when any and all individual Beetles could breed with Brown Beetles and
2. There would have been a later time when some Beetles could not breed with Brown Beetles.

Now from my calculations, the difference that caused the first child to be unable to mate with a Brown Beetle must have been its Green difference.
In other words the one difference – ‘Greenness’ had two unconnected consequences –
1. Favoured by the environment and
2. Inability to breed with Brown Beetles.
That sort of combination effect is (unless I am wrong somewhere) a strict requirement for Speciation.
Another issue with speciation that occurred to me was this –
There would have been a stage where in the Left Group there were only a few Green individuals that could not breed with Brown Beetles. Later there would have been lots of Green Beetles in Left Group that could not breed with Brown Beetles. But in the overall scheme of things there is an equal chance that in that latter stage, Non-Green Beetles could have again taken over. So we could have in Left Group -
1. Not many Green Beetles as a percentage of the Left group and lots of Non-Green Beetles
2. More Green Beetles
3. All Green Beetles
But we could equally have had –
1. Not many Green Beetles and lots of Non-Green Beetles
2. More Green Beetles
3. Almost all Green Beetles as a percentage of the Left group.
4. Less Green Beetles and lots of Non-Green Beetles
5. No Green Beetles. All Non-Green Beetles. All Individuals in Left and Right Group able to interbreed.
Why does that matter? Because I have not seen evidence showing that sort of re-emergence is common in animals.

Magellan