PDA

View Full Version : Micro- vis-à-vis Macro-Evolution



klaus54
08-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Let's discuss,

1) What is the mainstream science distinction between micro- and macro-evolution -- if there is one.

2) How do YECs, creationists, and other anti-evolutionists define the distinction?

3) Why do many anti-evolutionists accept micro- but not macro-? ...a fortiori, if there is no functional difference?

K54

Roy
08-10-2014, 02:37 PM
Let's discuss,

1) What is the mainstream science distinction between micro- and macro-evolution -- if there is one.
There is. Microevolution is evolution within a single species. Macroevolution is evolution beyond a single species.

Roy

phank
08-10-2014, 02:49 PM
There is. Microevolution is evolution within a single species. Macroevolution is evolution beyond a single species.

Roy

With the caveat that the distinction is blurry at the margin. We see populations of numerous species which appear to be in the process of speciation -- that is, some subgroup's interbreeding with the rest of the population is diminishing, sometimes approaching complete isolation. Sympatric speciation. During this process of increasing isolation, are we seeing micro or macro evolution in action?

klaus54
08-10-2014, 02:56 PM
With the caveat that the distinction is blurry at the margin. We see populations of numerous species which appear to be in the process of speciation -- that is, some subgroup's interbreeding with the rest of the population is diminishing, sometimes approaching complete isolation. Sympatric speciation. During this process of increasing isolation, are we seeing micro or macro evolution in action?

Right, and so with ring species.

K54

Roy
08-10-2014, 02:58 PM
During this process of increasing isolation, are we seeing micro or macro evolution in action?IIRC as long as there is no barrier to interbreeding, it's micro, but once there are two subgroups between which breeding is less successful (reproductively rather than frequentially) it becomes macro.

Roy

klaus54
08-10-2014, 03:21 PM
Anyway, regardless of ambiguity at the species boundary, there is a reproductive boundary somewhere up the taxonomic tree.

So, what is the Rubicon the anti-evolutionist dare not cross?

K54

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 03:31 PM
Anyway, regardless of ambiguity at the species boundary, there is a reproductive boundary somewhere up the taxonomic tree.

So, what is the Rubicon the anti-evolutionist dare not cross?

K54
Darwinian HUMAN Evolution

...speaking for myself that is

phank
08-10-2014, 03:41 PM
IIRC as long as there is no barrier to interbreeding, it's micro, but once there are two subgroups between which breeding is less successful (reproductively rather than frequentially) it becomes macro.

RoyBut there are many species catagorized as such because they DO not interbreed, rather than because such breeding would be less successful if they tried it. And occasionally ranges change, resuming an overlap, and gene flow between them resumes as a result. So the process of splitting and lumping goes on.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 03:50 PM
Darwinian HUMAN Evolution

...speaking for myself that is

So you're ok with non-human "Darwinian" evolution?

Is there a difference between evolution and "Darwinian evolution"? Do you mean the understanding of evolution before the modern synthesis of natural selection and molecular genetics?

K54

phank
08-10-2014, 03:58 PM
Anyway, regardless of ambiguity at the species boundary, there is a reproductive boundary somewhere up the taxonomic tree.

So, what is the Rubicon the anti-evolutionist dare not cross?

K54

Maybe this is the wrong model. The anti-evolutionists see a world of baramins. Gene flow within a baramin is expected, gene flow between baramins is prohibited. And what determines a baramin? Ah, there's some considerable creationist "research" into this question. My understanding is, horses and zebras are in different baramins, but all bacteria are in the same one. In general, baramins are careful to distinguish among large mammals, less careful about insects. Baramins have no real correspondence to Linnaean taxonomic levels, and can divide subspecies familiar to us while including entire phyla not so familiar.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 05:45 PM
Maybe this is the wrong model. The anti-evolutionists see a world of baramins. Gene flow within a baramin is expected, gene flow between baramins is prohibited. And what determines a baramin? Ah, there's some considerable creationist "research" into this question. My understanding is, horses and zebras are in different baramins, but all bacteria are in the same one. In general, baramins are careful to distinguish among large mammals, less careful about insects. Baramins have no real correspondence to Linnaean taxonomic levels, and can divide subspecies familiar to us while including entire phyla not so familiar.

Wow, that's just plain nuts.

:lolo:

So why can't evolution generate new "baramins", according whichever definition an anti-evolutionist chooses to use?

K54

1480

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 06:27 PM
Well, I am inclined to say that macroevolution is the evolution of a genus into another genus.

All a group of animals have to do is stop breeding with a subset of themselves to be a different species. So I would consider that microevolution.

my voices say the biblical taxa "kind" is equivolent to "genus"

klaus54
08-10-2014, 06:32 PM
Well, I am inclined to say that macroevolution is the evolution of a genus into another genus.

All a group of animals have to do is stop breeding with a subset of themselves to be a different species. So I would consider that microevolution.

my voices say the biblical taxa "kind" is equivolent to "genus"

Thanks for your input!

Now what mechanism would prevent the evolution of a subset of new species from an ancestral species from becoming eventually a new genus?

The key term here is "mechanism".

K54

phank
08-10-2014, 07:07 PM
Wow, that's just plain nuts.

:lolo:

So why can't evolution generate new "baramins", according whichever definition an anti-evolutionist chooses to use?

K54Because evolution does not create. It merely shuffles. All baramins were created during the first six days, though it has happened that some of them have gone extinct. No new ones can appear without the Creator bringing them (Wording them? Poofing them?) into existence.

The implications of the baramin approach may not be obvious at first. Because new baramins can't evolve, "macroevolution" can ONLY mean the morphing of one baramin into another - dogs into cats, for example. And this can't happen because it would require a half-dog, half-cat, which is not a chimera which could survive. Similarly dinosaurs could not evolve into birds, because this would entail half-wings which would be functionally useless. Also, because origin of life (and origin of baramins, and origins of the universe) are all part of the same atomic creation event, the distinctions between them are regarded as artificial and moot. The origin of all baramins WAS the origin of all life, so these are the same thing.

phank
08-10-2014, 07:09 PM
Now what mechanism would prevent the evolution of a subset of new species from an ancestral species from becoming eventually a new genus?

The key term here is "mechanism".

K54Divine prohibition, of course. ALL mechanisms are God's mechanisms.

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 07:17 PM
So you're ok with non-human "Darwinian" evolution?

Is there a difference between evolution and "Darwinian evolution"? Do you mean the understanding of evolution before the modern synthesis of natural selection and molecular genetics?

K54Darwin; that's the one that says we have common ancestor with the rest of creatures. Most recent with other apes, further back, with all the other primates, go back more, with all the other mammals, and so on and so forth. People call that 'Evolution'. Popular conception, the parade picture monkey to modern man, but cladistic chart probably more honest approach.

and then . the other "Evolution" , the observed (and sometimes directed) industrial application, observable process:

"Current challenges and promises of white biotechnology encourage protein engineers to use a directed evolution approach to generate novel and useful biocatalysts for various sets of applications. Different methods of enzyme engineering have been used in the past in an attempt to produce enzymes with improved functions and properties"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985113


"...In a process called “directed evolution” scientists re-enact natural evolution in the laboratory: they iteratively mutate an enzyme and select for mutants with the desired feature. Within months, directed evolution can increase an enzyme’s ability to catalyze a particular reaction by as much as 1000-fold—and sometimes even beyond. “In the past five years alone, there have been over 60 publications containing examples of directed evolution of enzymes for industrial processes,” says Gert Kiss, PhD, a postdoc at Stanford University, who collaborates closely with David Baker, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington and a pioneer in directed enzyme evolution..."
http://biomedicalcomputationreview.org/content/computing-better-enzymes-optimizing-directed-evolution

yeah, that second one is a fact.

and its used to imply the first one has been proved.
When you cite industrial application "evolution" and say, "see, evolution is both a theory and a fact", I think you (not just you, but Darwinists IN GENERAL, know that your listener will go away thinking we have a non human ape ancestor, or share a non human common ancestor with other animals.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 07:33 PM
Because evolution does not create. It merely shuffles. All baramins were created during the first six days, though it has happened that some of them have gone extinct. No new ones can appear without the Creator bringing them (Wording them? Poofing them?) into existence.

The implications of the baramin approach may not be obvious at first. Because new baramins can't evolve, "macroevolution" can ONLY mean the morphing of one baramin into another - dogs into cats, for example. And this can't happen because it would require a half-dog, half-cat, which is not a chimera which could survive. Similarly dinosaurs could not evolve into birds, because this would entail half-wings which would be functionally useless. Also, because origin of life (and origin of baramins, and origins of the universe) are all part of the same atomic creation event, the distinctions between them are regarded as artificial and moot. The origin of all baramins WAS the origin of all life, so these are the same thing.

That's the best explanation I've ever heard for anti-evolution recalcitrance! They basically "define" an unknowable notion (really an axiom) and presuppose this undefined and unknowable notion is conceptualized as something like a jigsaw puzzle of pairwise disjoint "baramins".

How convenient. Axiomatic categories with no definition and no way of testing or researching. And all fabricated nonsense to avoid accepting the notion of biological evolution.

I suppose the "baramin" concept allows one to accept deep time without accepting evolution.

I'd love to see more discussion on this, especially with input from our board YEC expert.

K54

klaus54
08-10-2014, 07:44 PM
Darwin; that's the one that says we have common ancestor with the rest of creatures. Most recent with other apes, further back, with all the other primates, go back more, with all the other mammals, and so on and so forth. People call that 'Evolution'. Popular conception, the parade picture monkey to modern man, but cladistic chart probably more honest approach.

and then . the other "Evolution" , the observed (and sometimes directed) industrial application, observable process:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985113


http://biomedicalcomputationreview.org/content/computing-better-enzymes-optimizing-directed-evolution

yeah, that second one is a fact.

and its used to imply the first one has been proved.
When you cite industrial application "evolution" and say, "see, evolution is both a theory and a fact", I think you (not just you, but Darwinists IN GENERAL, know that your listener will go away thinking we have a non human ape ancestor, or share a non human common ancestor with other animals.

Oh, OK -- I thought you opposed only HUMAN "Darwinian Evolution."

I don't think anti-evolutionists will EVER go away, regardless of what anyone says.

But if you want to exclude that humans have non-human ancestors, then you are still are stuck with the task of explaining the vast majority of the rock and fossil record. I.e., evolution spanning a time interval over 1,000 times longer than the (according to not just YOU, but all anti-evolutionists, non-existing) record of Hominid evolution.

As an analogy, you've discarded the top inch of water from an 80-foot deep lake.

Now you limit evolution to what can be observed in real time -- mostly artificial selection and some small naturally-occurring phenotype changes, or "micro-evolution". Farm plants and animals and bio-medical stuff...

But that doesn't address my question. What barrier is there to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution?

Is it the amount of time required?

K54

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 11:38 PM
Oh, OK -- I thought you opposed only HUMAN "Darwinian Evolution." ........

K54

huh?
that part of your reply doesn't make any sense as to what I posted that time.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 10:29 AM
huh?
that part of your reply doesn't make any sense as to what I posted that time.

The Rubicon you indicated in your first post was


Darwinian HUMAN Evolution

...speaking for myself that is


Then in a later post you agreed with the fact of microevolution - bio-engineering and that jazz.

So if HUMAN Darwinian evolution is not the micro/macro boundary, then what is?

K54

jordanriver
08-11-2014, 01:06 PM
The Rubicon you indicated in your first post was



Then in a later post you agreed with the fact of microevolution - bio-engineering and that jazz.

So if HUMAN Darwinian evolution is not the micro/macro boundary, then what is?

K54
?
why not agree with the evolution that is known to be real, the "bio-engineering and that jazz" ?

That was my attempt to demonstrate that there are TWO different "evolutions" , (at least 2)

and my attempt to point out , how, at least in my experience, how Darwinists use the directed part to infer their unproven claim (Darwin's common ancestor theory)

ok, got that explained i think.

ok SUBJECT CHANGE
You asked what is micro/macro boundary , so I now try explain with IMHO

IMHO, macro is so many small changes that the morphology causes new species (speciation) OR, at least the appearance that one version is a different species than other, perhaps because they cannot mate anymore?
I always wondered, if some alien Darwinist visited Earth, would think Great Danes and Chihuahua were different species.


ok, moving on, IMHO, (my take, so don't blame other Bible believers because of what I might think) ..."MICRO"
I think micro is the known changes, like the bio-engineering directed lab-scenario, but not just lab-scenario, but also other instances of population being threatened. So IMHO, there is a PROGRAM, (some trait already there) that causes the members of threatened species' genomes to increase rate of mutations. Been known that there is up to million-fold increase in rate, TO HURRY UP AND CREATE IMMUNE SURVIVOR.
And not just DNA mutations, but also epigenetic changes to find adaption to new situation. All that has to do is switch on or off genes that already there.
And IMHO, this is MICRO because its there to PRESERVE POPULATIONS for survival, IOW, preserve existence of species.

not always successful, species go extinct, still dangerous world.


hmmm
.....so, that also answers another of your questions
"what barrier is there to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution, ...is it the amount of time required?"

as you can see, why would I think time is a problem, when you got million-fold rate increases for stress-induced mutagenesis, and epigenetics too, if micro can become macro, I wouldn't have to use the lack of time excuse.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 02:39 PM
?
why not agree with the evolution that is known to be real, the "bio-engineering and that jazz" ?

That was my attempt to demonstrate that there are TWO different "evolutions" , (at least 2)

and my attempt to point out , how, at least in my experience, how Darwinists use the directed part to infer their unproven claim (Darwin's common ancestor theory)

ok, got that explained i think.

ok SUBJECT CHANGE
You asked what is micro/macro boundary , so I now try explain with IMHO

IMHO, macro is so many small changes that the morphology causes new species (speciation) OR, at least the appearance that one version is a different species than other, perhaps because they cannot mate anymore?
I always wondered, if some alien Darwinist visited Earth, would think Great Danes and Chihuahua were different species.


ok, moving on, IMHO, (my take, so don't blame other Bible believers because of what I might think) ..."MICRO"
I think micro is the known changes, like the bio-engineering directed lab-scenario, but not just lab-scenario, but also other instances of population being threatened. So IMHO, there is a PROGRAM, (some trait already there) that causes the members of threatened species' genomes to increase rate of mutations. Been known that there is up to million-fold increase in rate, TO HURRY UP AND CREATE IMMUNE SURVIVOR.
And not just DNA mutations, but also epigenetic changes to find adaption to new situation. All that has to do is switch on or off genes that already there.
And IMHO, this is MICRO because its there to PRESERVE POPULATIONS for survival, IOW, preserve existence of species.

not always successful, species go extinct, still dangerous world.


hmmm
.....so, that also answers another of your questions

as you can see, why would I think time is a problem, when you got million-fold rate increases for stress-induced mutagenesis, and epigenetics too, if micro can become macro, I wouldn't have to use the lack of time excuse.

Since the mechanisms (mutations + genetic drift + natural selection) are the same for micro and macro, I still don't see where you answered the question of the boundary between them. Used a lot of words and thrashing around but no answer.

At what taxonomic level is the boundary? All living things have the same genetic "alphabet". What's to prevent speciation or separation of genera or classes, etc.?

Epigenetics does affect probability of survival to reproductive age, but that happens from generation to generation. It has nothing to do with the distinction between micro and macro.

Does any other "macro-evolutionist" see what JR is trying to get across? He/she has me flummoxed.

K54

jordanriver
08-11-2014, 03:17 PM
Since the mechanisms (mutations + genetic drift + natural selection) are the same for micro and macro, I still don't see where you answered the question of the boundary between them. Used a lot of words and thrashing around but no answer.

At what taxonomic level is the boundary? All living things have the same genetic "alphabet". What's to prevent speciation or separation of genera or classes, etc.?

Epigenetics does affect probability of survival to reproductive age, but that happens from generation to generation. It has nothing to do with the distinction between micro and macro.

Does any other "macro-evolutionist" see what JR is trying to get across? He/she has me flummoxed.

K54
the boundary ,
I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.

I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.

I don't set that boundary.

I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.

Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
You say the result is various species.
I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.

phank
08-11-2014, 03:45 PM
the boundary ,
I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.OK, except that nobody is in charge, and morphology (the animal's shape) is a relatively minor factor.


I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.Why would anyone want to do that?


I don't set that boundary.The question really is whether there ARE any such boundaries, and if there are, what they might be. Not who set them.


I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.Nobody else is saying this either.


Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
You say the result is various species.
I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.Since genetic drift and natural selection have, over time, diverged rather widely, you seem to be saying that elephants and sponges and oak trees and e. coli are actually all the same "preserved" species. This is a rather broad category which has some practical limitations, not least being it's not very useful. Other than that, however, it's quite clever because it lumps all of these various shapes into a single species whose members differ only, you know, in terms of shape, behavior, interbreeding, genetic structure, past history, little things like that. It's microevolution all the way down.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 04:23 PM
the boundary ,
I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.

I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.

I don't set that boundary.

I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.

Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
You say the result is various species.
I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.

If a species is adapted to a niche and the environment changes little, then random mutation and natural selection tend to preserve the species. The average lifespan of any vertebrate species is on the order of 10 million years.

But what happens with the species when the niche closes and others open due to changing environmental conditions? (Long-term plate tectonics, short-term volcanic activity, meteor impact, droughts or floods, invasion by predators or organisms with similar niche? Then natural selection will act on the available genetics in the community and survival probabilities will change leading to changes in gene frequencies. The species in the first sentence will likely become extinct.

The boundaries of macro-evolution aren't "decided" by anyone in the mainstream community because there ARE NONE. Anti-evolutionists believe there ARE boundaries, and I'm asking what THOSE ARE.

K54

jordanriver
08-11-2014, 06:45 PM
OK, except that nobody is in charge, and morphology (the animal's shape) is a relatively minor factor.

Why would anyone want to do that?

The question really is whether there ARE any such boundaries, and if there are, what they might be. Not who set them.

Nobody else is saying this either.
.
oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
But that was back in the good ole days.
I don't know if you're familiar with the history.



Since genetic drift and natural selection have, over time, diverged rather widely, you seem to be saying that elephants and sponges and oak trees and e. coli are actually all the same "preserved" species. This is a rather broad category which has some practical limitations, not least being it's not very useful. Other than that, however, it's quite clever because it lumps all of these various shapes into a single species whose members differ only, you know, in terms of shape, behavior, interbreeding, genetic structure, past history, little things like that. It's microevolution all the way down
oh come on now.
Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.

phank
08-11-2014, 07:22 PM
oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
But that was back in the good ole days.
I don't know if you're familiar with the history.Well enough. A species is necessarily a hazy category - if it were not, evolution would be seriously handicapped. So when you have two separate interbreeding populations, and they stop interbreeding, they get split. When they resume interbreeding (if they do), they get lumped.

As a former avid birder, I was aware that the main list birders maintained was their USA list, and there are just about exactly 600 species of birds found in the US at one time or another. So 600 was a magic number, and those who reached it were the envy of those who had not. But as it happened, two fairly common species were the common chickadee and the black-capped chickadee. All birders had both on their lists, of course. Then some very careful observers noticed that both species seemed to be tending the same nests, and further watching showed that the black cap was nothing more than immature coloration. So the lumpers combined them, since they were in fact all one population. And a LOT of people fell to 599 species on their life lists. It was kind of funny.



oh come on now.
Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.But nature IS limited to that restriction. There are some general rules of thumb (as my story implied) about what constitutes a species. In general, species are considered different if we have two populations that do not interbreed for any reason. Note, this isn't if they CANNOT breed, simply if in nature it doesn't happen. This might be due to many things - mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, geographic separation, etc.

Yet speciation happens, even sympatric speciation, where one population gradually divides into two as the members of one stop breeding with members of the other. This is called a branching event, and can take up to thousands of years to complete. And of course, there can be dispute as to how little gene flow constitutes breeding isolation. Klaus spoke of ring species.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 08:37 PM
oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
But that was back in the good ole days.
I don't know if you're familiar with the history.



oh come on now.
Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.

SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of what??

Lumping or splitting occurs at the hazy species or occasionally the genus level.

So what does this have to do with a boundary between micro and macro?

Speciation occurs. It's even been observed in a very cases in the last hundred years. So what would happen in thousands or tens of thousands or...? What barrier would limit change over time (by definition "evolution") from giving rise to new genera or orders or...?

Where and what is the boundary?

K54

jordanriver
08-12-2014, 01:04 AM
SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of what??

K54

of all life.

In context I was replying to phank who answered that nature has the single common ancestor restriction.


Where and what is the boundary?

not a where or a what question.
I believe that is a WHEN problem.

I can't see why there would be any need for a boundary now. Why would there be any controversy, life already exists.

...inspired by attempting to read and understand Alan Guth's 'The Inflationary Universe', a zero energy universe solution...
...I offer a zero boundary answer for micro to macro.

It occurred to me, once all the "kinds" (vot-ever dot minns) , or "common ancestors" (however many that may be?, ....nikto ne-znayet!/nobody knows...),

....then what difference does it make if they morph/speciate now

jordanriver
08-12-2014, 01:19 AM
And a LOT of people fell to 599 species on their life lists. It was kind of funny.

.I guess it would be. I like that.


But nature IS limited to that restriction.

but why?
if it happened once ....


There are some general rules of thumb (as my story implied) about what constitutes a species. In general, species are considered different if we have two populations that do not interbreed for any reason. Note, this isn't if they CANNOT breed, simply if in nature it doesn't happen. This might be due to many things - mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, geographic separation, etc.

Yet speciation happens, even sympatric speciation, where one population gradually divides into two as the members of one stop breeding with members of the other. This is called a branching event, and can take up to thousands of years to complete. And of course, there can be dispute as to how little gene flow constitutes breeding isolation. Klaus spoke of ring species
but, if "reversed direction" happens, like the talk origins horses link allows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

so, if "branching event" occurs, and the 'daughter' species cannot breed with the parent one, its a new species.
but if reverse evolution occurs and the "two" species can interbreed again, what happens,

do you say , ok, now its the species it used to be

or what if I say, it was never a different "species" to begin with

phank
08-12-2014, 06:11 AM
But why?
if it happened once ....A start is something that can only ever happen once. After that, it's already started.



but, if "reversed direction" happens, like the talk origins horses link allows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

so, if "branching event" occurs, and the 'daughter' species cannot breed with the parent one, its a new species.
but if reverse evolution occurs and the "two" species can interbreed again, what happens,

do you say , ok, now its the species it used to be

or what if I say, it was never a different "species" to begin withI would agree with you. Think of a tree, where branches diverge from branches. You NEVER see two branches merging back into one branch later.

What you are doing is playing games with the notion of "species", which is necessarily not a clearly defined term. Generally, it refers to a population of interbreeding individuals. So if they do not interbreed, they are regarded as different species for practical purposes. If they are closely enough related to interbreed and interbreeding resumes, then they are lumped back together. Splitting and lumping happen at the margins, where the various notions of species get fuzzy.

So you are guilty here of black-and-white thinking. Two populations that CAN interbreed if they choose, are close enough that whether they are regarded in practice as different species depends on their current behavior rather than their genetic makeup. But this is not "reverse evolution", it's simply changing behavior. If enough time passes without genetic exchange, then differing mutations in the different populations will accumulate, eventually reaching the point where the populations are too genetically distinct for breeding to be successful. And beyond that point, there is no return.

Pluto
08-12-2014, 06:41 PM
Maybe this is the wrong model. The anti-evolutionists see a world of baramins. Gene flow within a baramin is expected, gene flow between baramins is prohibited. And what determines a baramin? Ah, there's some considerable creationist "research" into this question. My understanding is, horses and zebras are in different baramins, but all bacteria are in the same one. In general, baramins are careful to distinguish among large mammals, less careful about insects. Baramins have no real correspondence to Linnaean taxonomic levels, and can divide subspecies familiar to us while including entire phyla not so familiar.

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/mammalian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/determining-the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/identifying-and-numbering-amphibian-kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/an-initial-estimate-of-avian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

phank
08-12-2014, 07:15 PM
I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. Since a "baramin" is an entirely arbitrary category irrelevant to any natural taxonomy, the distinction is unimportant.

Your links to "AnswersInBozoland" lack any relevance to reality, so there's no reason to do anything but laugh at them. If you personally are married to such idiocy, then god bless you. Certainly no sane people will.

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 07:21 PM
I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/mammalian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/determining-the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/identifying-and-numbering-amphibian-kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/an-initial-estimate-of-avian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

Hi Pluto, and welcome to the monkey house. :smile:

Is it your opinion that all extant equines evolved from the original horse "kind" on the Ark in the last 4500 years? What about all the extinct fossil horses we find? How do they fit into the YEC picture?

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 08:16 PM
Pluto, welcome. Sorry about your rocky start in TWeb.

klaus54
08-12-2014, 08:17 PM
I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/mammalian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/determining-the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/identifying-and-numbering-amphibian-kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/an-initial-estimate-of-avian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

I didn't ask about "baraminology", although that came up in the discussion. I asked what prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. Where is the boundary? What kind of boundary is it? Genetic?

The artificial and undefinable notion of a "baramin" simply evades the question. The genetic code is the same in all these baramins, so what would prevent evolution among separate baramins?

Getting back to reality, consider the good old Linnaean system. At what taxonomic level does micro-evolution run into its pons asinorum? And why? What mechanism prevents the bridge crossing?

If any the YEC "ministries" answer these questions, please provide the answer here in your own words. It should be simple enough.

Thanks!

K54

Pluto
08-12-2014, 08:18 PM
Hi Pluto, and welcome to the monkey house. :smile:

Is it your opinion that all extant equines evolved from the original horse "kind" on the Ark in the last 4500 years? What about all the extinct fossil horses we find? How do they fit into the YEC picture?

I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind. My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before. I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

And lol, looks like the monkey house has already started. Didn't even get the time of day before it began.

@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

klaus54
08-12-2014, 08:33 PM
I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind. My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before. I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

And lol, looks like the monkey house has already started. Didn't even get the time of day before it began.

@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

Monkey house indeed.

If equine fossils are post flood, you're talking VERY rapid evolution, much faster than evolutonists could imagine.

And if "baramins" are delineated at the order/class level that's WAY beyond the YEC notion of micro-evolution.

Inconsistency on steroids!

So assuming the "baramin" notion of micro-evolution, what's the evolutionary boundary between class and phylum?

I'd hate to conclude that Biblical Scientific Creationists are making this up as they go.

K54

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 08:35 PM
I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind.

Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes
Common horses have 64 chromosomes
Donkeys have 62 chromosomes
Onagers have 56 chromosomes
Grevy's zebra has 46 chromosomes
Burchell's zebra has 44 chromosomes
Mountain zebras have 32 chromosomes.

How did they all get so wildly divergent in just 4500 years?


My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before.

Fair enough, but if you can't identify the end-of-flood boundary how can you know which were "kinds" on the Ark? Isn't that piece of data absolutely critical to baraminology?


I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

Do what you can but be sure it's fun. :smile:

klaus54
08-12-2014, 08:45 PM
...
@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

Are you interested in finding truth or defending an inconsistent hodge-podge of ad hoc nonsense?

If you think that we think these YEC "ministries" are idiots, then why do you suppose we think that? Ideology? Or perhaps geologic, biogeographical, and genetic evidence? You DO realize that scientific method is based on observations and testing? How does the evidence fit baraminology? Heck, since "baramins" are undefined and arbitrary, science doesn't apply.

Baraminology appeareth to me to be scholastic bellybutton pondering -- like how many angels can dance on the head of a brad.

Since you seem to be amused by our questions, here's another howler for ya: What is "consilience"? How does science use that concept?

K54

Pluto
08-12-2014, 09:26 PM
I didn't ask about "baraminology", although that came up in the discussion. I asked what prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. Where is the boundary? What kind of boundary is it? Genetic?

The artificial and undefinable notion of a "baramin" simply evades the question. The genetic code is the same in all these baramins, so what would prevent evolution among separate baramins?

Getting back to reality, consider the good old Linnaean system. At what taxonomic level does micro-evolution run into its pons asinorum? And why? What mechanism prevents the bridge crossing?

If any the YEC "ministries" answer these questions, please provide the answer here in your own words. It should be simple enough.

Thanks!

K54

I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit)

First, since this is short, there is no hard and fast rule for where the cutoff is in comparison to Linnaen system. While a YEC will typically cite the family/order level, I'm pretty sure there are going to be very odd exceptions occasionally.

Before I get how you go about checking whether two things are a baramin or not, I'll briefly answer the boundary question. I'll write a second post after I've gone to sleep. There are actually two answers to this question, a what and a why. The why is the off-mentioned concept of information. I doubt this'll have any traction with you, other than linking together YEC concepts. The what is likely considerably more interesting to you.

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 09:56 PM
I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

A few quick points

1. Your description of the fitness landscape is a lot like the ID position put forth by Dembski. Unfortunately you are making the same mistake he does. You visualize the fitness peak as a 3-D structure with deep valleys between and no way to cross. But in the real world the fitness peaks are n-dimentional with n ranging in the hundreds if not thousands. Most paths may be too difficult for evolution to cross but it only takes 1 out of the n to provide a viable pathway.

2. You also assume the local fitness peaks are stationary. They are not. In a constantly changing environment the peaks are constantly shifting. There may exist a window of opportunity where two peaks converge closely enough to let an otherwise uncrossable gap be crossed.

3. It has been empirically shown that some individuals can sustain deleterious mutations which move them to a lower fitness level. However, at this lower level they now have new upward paths to different peaks that weren't accessible from the old peak. One step back two steps forward works fine in evolution.


Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

I'm pretty bushed too and tomorrow is a long day. Interesting topic though.

Jorge
08-13-2014, 04:31 AM
... looks like the monkey house has already started.

Yeah, "monkey house" ... but also a snake pit - watch yourself!



I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me)

"Entertainment"? Yes, absolutely, listening to the unending nonsense of 'these' people can be highly entertaining, just as rattling their cage and watching them go ape-wild is funny as all can be.

"... anyone convinced by you"? There's always a chance, be it ever so infinitesimal. What 'they' are really interested in is convincing you that (1) you are wrong and, (2) they are right (in reference to their "science" and their worldview). I hope and pray that the chances of that are infinitesimal-squared.

Jorge

klaus54
08-13-2014, 05:01 AM
I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit)

First, since this is short, there is no hard and fast rule for where the cutoff is in comparison to Linnaen system. While a YEC will typically cite the family/order level, I'm pretty sure there are going to be very odd exceptions occasionally.

Before I get how you go about checking whether two things are a baramin or not, I'll briefly answer the boundary question. I'll write a second post after I've gone to sleep. There are actually two answers to this question, a what and a why. The why is the off-mentioned concept of information. I doubt this'll have any traction with you, other than linking together YEC concepts. The what is likely considerably more interesting to you.

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

Thanks for the thoughtful and polite response.

I understand fitness landscapes pretty well, but don't get your point, which still seems not to address mine.

Speciation occurs within a fitness landscape either sympatrically or with geographical boundaries. Speciation is ALL that occurs. No one claims (AFAIK) than new genera form without first speciation events.

My question still is, what prevents evolution, given enough time, from producing new genera, orders, classes, and phyla?

The baramin concept doesn't help with this question. It just makes the issue more confusing.

Also keep in mind that Earth has been geologically active for at least 4 billion years. Land bodies and oceans have dramatically changed position and elemental proportions, the atmosphere has changed it percents of gases, oceans have changed amounts of dissolved gases, climate has dramatically changed, and types of producers have changed -- over the billions of years timeframe.

The fitness landscapes have changed over time, sometimes very slowly (on the order of several millions of years) or drastically (like in a meteor impact, etc.)

Thanks again!

K54

klaus54
08-13-2014, 05:10 AM
Yeah, "monkey house" ... but also a snake pit - watch yourself!




"Entertainment"? Yes, absolutely, listening to the unending nonsense of 'these' people can be highly entertaining, just as rattling their cage and watching them go ape-wild is funny as all can be.

"... anyone convinced by you"? There's always a chance, be it ever so infinitesimal. What 'they' are really interested in is convincing you that (1) you are wrong and, (2) they are right (in reference to their "science" and their worldview). I hope and pray that the chances of that are infinitesimal-squared.

Jorge

Pluto is doing well on his own. He doesn't need your caveats.

I'm VERY pleased that he is engaging the topic in polite and thoughtful conversation. I.e., he's trying to deal with the topic on a level other than Bible-thumping and insults.

K54

Jorge
08-13-2014, 11:12 AM
Pluto is doing well on his own. He doesn't need your caveats.

I'm VERY pleased that he is engaging the topic in polite and thoughtful conversation. I.e., he's trying to deal with the topic on a level other than Bible-thumping and insults.

K54

If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ... :popcorn:

Jorge

seer
08-13-2014, 11:28 AM
If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ... :popcorn:

Jorge


Well I hope he doesn't leave, I really enjoy his posts...

klaus54
08-13-2014, 12:59 PM
If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ... :popcorn:

Jorge

Either support Pluto with his comments or leave him alone.

K54

Pluto
08-13-2014, 05:20 PM
I think I can respond to most posts that have occured with only two

@Klaus & Jorge On my motivations and expectations (Muahahaha! How does it feel to be lumped together?)

I am interested in truth, but for me to truly check (and understand) YEC vs. not-YEC would demand an extreme amount of study. I would need to read large amounts of primary literature, consider both their arguments and attempt to construct counter arguments, and then collate the whole thing. I don’t really have time to do this at the moment :sad:. Furthermore, other fragments of my epistemology demand that this can only be done by myself, and so this venue is not really appropriate for deep-seated changes. I’m probably willing to engage in refinements and alterations in my understanding of all models in play, but I doubt huge major shifts in my preferred model will occur. Thus I claim that my primary motivator is entertainment, because I find model building/editing entertaining. I also have a secondary goal of being a better communicator. (Not necessarily of YEC, but if I can improve people’s knowledge of YEC, then anything else is probably incredibly easy)

As why people think AIG, etc. are idiots, this is primarily an experimental fact coupled with an understanding that people think YEC is absurd based on various physical data. I don’t have a more specific answer than this. I might, if pressed, be able to produce some specific data that might cause this, but I’m more interested in current topic.

@HMSBeagle & Klaus

On Speciation

Current YEC thought has speciation occurring, as well as probably the occasional new genera and family. (This can be seen in the links if you don’t believe me) Baramins are partly a shorthand way of describing where the ‘splitability’ cutoff is, but involve some additional considerations. I think some OEC might not permit speciation, but I’m not totally sure. Most YEC’s do permit speciation, as we require all variants of a land-dwelling kind to be generated by an extremely small population(potentially just a pair), which demands some fairly extreme speciation. (Horse mentioned previously is an example) As for how, sufficient research has not yet been done, but probably some form of epigenetics is important. I have my own unsupported conjectures, but I’m keeping those to myself at the moment. If I was a biologist, one of the things I would be interested in researching is if there is any controlled fashion for changing chromosome numbers, but I don’t think anybody has research on that, and it would probably require a more complete understanding of epigenetic considerations than we currently have :sad:.

I don’t think I ever claimed that new genera occur before new species, I’d assume it goes upwards typically (many speciations implying genera splits), baring special events. Can you point to where you got that idea so that I can avoid that descriptive pitfall in the future?

There are a couple questions/statements that involve the nature of baramins (Are they arbitrary? Important for the ark?) these might come up later as the discussion of fitness surfaces moves forward, so I’m going to delay responding to them unless the answer is strongly desired.

As for the question you keep asking Klaus, hopefully it is at least partly answered in the next post as I discuss fitness landscapes. If it does not, I’ll probably need a bit more information on what sort of answer you are looking for.

Pluto
08-13-2014, 05:29 PM
I’m going to use HMSBeagle’s post as a base for the fitness landscape.


A few quick points

1. Your description of the fitness landscape is a lot like the ID position put forth by Dembski. Unfortunately you are making the same mistake he does. You visualize the fitness peak as a 3-D structure with deep valleys between and no way to cross. But in the real world the fitness peaks are n-dimentional with n ranging in the hundreds if not thousands. Most paths may be too difficult for evolution to cross but it only takes 1 out of the n to provide a viable pathway.

2. You also assume the local fitness peaks are stationary. They are not. In a constantly changing environment the peaks are constantly shifting. There may exist a window of opportunity where two peaks converge closely enough to let an otherwise uncrossable gap be crossed.

3. It has been empirically shown that some individuals can sustain deleterious mutations which move them to a lower fitness level. However, at this lower level they now have new upward paths to different peaks that weren't accessible from the old peak. One step back two steps forward works fine in evolution.



1. The n-dimensionality (and thus many possible paths) is definitely important to keep in mind as we move forward to comparisons. It’s quite possible it’s similar to Dembski’s picture (I might have read his book too, but I’m not sure), but it’s really more directly related to me putting everything in terms of chemical energy landscapes, and then going crazy with analogies. Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the actual structure is discrete and not continuous, though the implications of that are probably messy.

Never the less, the high dimensionality does not forbid my characterizations of YEC vs. non-YEC positions, after all, there are n-spheres and the like. It just might make it more difficult for islands to exist.

2. Excellent, a reminder to spell out more stuff! I totally forgot to specify this sort of thing. I implicitly consider the ‘oceans of death’ to be more aggressive than examples such as having no fur out in the cold (Which is subject to the whims of the environs). I would typically consider them more like developmental challenges or infertility, where the organism doesn’t even get out of the starting gate. These sorts of deeper problems would have more fixed positions, as the environment wouldn’t matter quite as much. Within an ‘island’ (which is probably more like an archipelago) transit may be temporarily but not fundamentally prevented by the current situation. I tend to ignore this sort of internal behavior and treat all parts accessible unless there is something special going on, but this is a good reminder in case it matters. This hopefully sheds more light for Klaus on what prevents transits between baramins (And thus stuff like classes and phyla) in YEC. There are large stretches of developmental insta-death or equivalent effects.

Further notes in this area include recognizing that the surface depends not only the outside conditions but also on the population distribution itself. Notable examples include developing organisms (If there are only plants and bacteria, then even if a bacteria magically converts to the first cell of a rabbit, the rabbit will die. It requires either rabbits already present or a rabbit-like predecessor for viability), prey-predator relationships (If predators exists, the viability of prey goes down), and symbiotic relationships (Viability goes up if another organism exists).

3. Indeed this is the case. While there might be some concerns about speed in more extreme example of down and up, it is not actively prevented unless the down kills the organism.

phank
08-13-2014, 05:38 PM
I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit).Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

HMS_Beagle
08-13-2014, 06:27 PM
I’m going to use HMSBeagle’s post as a base for the fitness landscape.

Before you get too enamored with your fitness landscape let me bring you back from the theoretical to the empirical. You say there were created 'kinds" or "baramins" that are not related by common descent. However we have lots of fossil and genetic empirical evidence that says common descent is true. For example, ask any YEC and they'll tell you the cat "kind" and the dog "kind" are two unique groups. But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this


A cross between a panther and a squirrel: 55-million-year-old fossil reveals shared ancestor of cats and dogs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2535216/A-cross-panther-squirrel-55-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-shared-ancestor-cats-dogs.html)

Domestic cats and dogs, along with other carnivorous animals like lions and bears, all share lineage with a tree-dwelling mammal whose origins remain a mystery. Yet paleontologists believe there are even earlier ancestors explaining the evolutionary line of these much loved animals. Now scientists in Belgium have unearthed fossils of one of the earliest of these mammals which roamed through humid forests 55 million years ago

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/07/article-2535216-1A785B5B00000578-77_634x514.jpg

The problem for baraminologists is there are hundreds of examples of species like this at the common divergence point that don't fit into either baramin. Or fit into both depending on your assessment.

That sort of evidence needs an explanation.

I'm still curious as to how all those horse "kinds" managed to acquire such different chromosomal arrangements in such a short time. I also would like to hear you speak more about how not knowing the Flood boundary line isn't a huge problem when interpreting fossils for their "baramin".

Thanks for getting to what you can.

Pluto
08-13-2014, 06:34 PM
Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

Hm... what I was going for by jumping is that if there is a species A and species B, there is no sequence of situations that will make the descendants of A and B able to interbreed. While such a situation might be absurdly rare, in the abstract it doesn't seem impossible for evolution if A and B have a common ancestor and partial convergent evolution is possible. Is my assessment incorrect? If so, does that mean that the standard understanding of evolution does not permit large scale backtracking by an organism's descendants? (If circumstances are extreme) I'd need to update my thoughts on jumping if that is the case. Thanks for the info.

klaus54
08-13-2014, 06:52 PM
Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

@Pluto:

Phank gives a concise summary here.

1) Speciation occurs when new species diverge from an extant population, either by a geographical reproductive barrier or within the population (sympatric speciation).

There is no jumping "saltation" of genera, sometimes called by the slang term "hopeful monster".

2) Given enough time (and this a key point!), what would prevent descendant species which undergo more and more speciation from separating into genera? And later into orders? Classes? Phyla?

There is no existing genetic boundary that I can see or imagine.

3) "Baramin" is indeed a concept that has no genetic, hard boundary definition. There is the modern concept of "clades" which a nested sets defined by (apparent -- to an anti-evolutonist) ancestral relationships.

It looks like "baramin" is simply a way of attempting to reify the Genesis word translated "kind".


And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


To ME, the obvious reading of "kind" here is that cows give birth to cow, dogs to dogs, monkeys to monkeys, etc., from one generation to the next. I.e., it obviates the "hopeful monster" notion that anti-evolutionist use occasionally.

If this is indeed what "baramin" or "kind" means, then no evolutionist will have a squawk.

In fact, I can't see any OTHER way to interpret "kind" from the text.

So, now EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF KIND, and how is that notion teased out of the first Genesis story?

4) Expanding on (3), trying to extend "baramin" to a modern notion of taxonomy is TO ME a futile pursuit. Why? Because the Ark story and Ge 1-11 are in fact not detailed in a manner the fits modern taxonomy. It probably made some kind of sense to the ANE, but trying to extrapolate that to the vast body of modern knowledge is (again IMO) "boxing the air."

5) There are wonderful summaries of the findings of geology, biology, genetic, and astronomy available to a broad variety of readers' knowledge. You don't have to go to the primary literature unless you want to fact check. The primary literature on deep time and deep history and biological evolution consist of tens of thousands of publications.

Also a brief divergence -- the evidence for deep time is manifest to anyone who drives through a mountainous region and see complex geology (more than just flat sedimentary layers) or simply looks at the beautiful night sky.

Anyway, I DO appreciate your attempt to address the micro-/macro-evolution boundary issue.

And you're doing it in a thoughtful and unemotional manner. which is rare in this forum.

K54

HMS_Beagle
08-13-2014, 07:02 PM
Hm... what I was going for by jumping is that if there is a species A and species B, there is no sequence of situations that will make the descendants of A and B able to interbreed. While such a situation might be absurdly rare, in the abstract it doesn't seem impossible for evolution if A and B have a common ancestor and partial convergent evolution is possible. Is my assessment incorrect? If so, does that mean that the standard understanding of evolution does not permit large scale backtracking by an organism's descendants? (If circumstances are extreme) I'd need to update my thoughts on jumping if that is the case. Thanks for the info.

Not only is it possible it's been empirically observed between Polar bears and Grizzly bears in the Canadian Arctic.

Hybrid grizzly-polar bear a curiosity (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/AlaskaScienceForum/article/hybrid-grizzly-polar-bear-curiosity)

Pluto
08-13-2014, 07:16 PM
Before you get too enamored with your fitness landscape let me bring you back from the theoretical to the empirical. You say there were created 'kinds" or "baramins" that are not related by common descent. However we have lots of fossil and genetic empirical evidence that says common descent is true. For example, ask any YEC and they'll tell you the cat "kind" and the dog "kind" are two unique groups. But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/07/article-2535216-1A785B5B00000578-77_634x514.jpg

The problem for baraminologists is there are hundreds of examples of species like this at the common divergence point that don't fit into either baramin. Or fit into both depending on your assessment.

That sort of evidence needs an explanation.

I'm still curious as to how all those horse "kinds" managed to acquire such different chromosomal arrangements in such a short time. I also would like to hear you speak more about how not knowing the Flood boundary line isn't a huge problem when interpreting fossils for their "baramin".

Thanks for getting to what you can.

Hi again. Unfortunately it's cases like these that would require massive in-depth study for me to be able to parse YEC/non-YEC preference of them :sad:. For reference

Dental and tarsal anatomy of ‘Miacis’ latouri and a phylogenetic analysis of the earliest carnivoraforms (Mammalia, Carnivoramorpha)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2013.793195#.U-wU0mOSlVM

Might be the original source. I don't have enough fossil/other knowledge to properly consider the strength of the claims presented in it, as well as how it fits with the surrounding literature. Other considers that I would have to check is how these sorts of reconstructions pan out as fossil parts increase. All of which I would have to do myself to try and eliminate counting biases (like your reference to hundreds of these. I don't totally trust anyone with these sorts of claims I'm afraid) and enable me to ask questions I don't even have the information to come up with at the moment. My woefully limited knowledge is not impressed by an ankle, jaw, and some teeth though.

As for what they would imply, depending on their characteristics they'll either represent baramin fusions (two baramins that were thought to be separate are really one), members of one or the other, or baramins not currently extant. Probably there is a whole YEC research paper lying in wait analyzing each and every one of the cases to determine their location and significance, just as there is a non-YEC research paper discussing the location of them within evolutionary considerations. YEC just doesn't have the man-power to do this at the moment. :sad:

I was probably a bit quick on the 'it doesn't matter' consideration. What I was going for is that baramins are thought to be 'fixed' in a fundamental way, and so no new baramins will arise post flood. This means that accounting for baramins currently extant give a lot of information of baramins previously extant. What someone would do would probably just compare the fossils to known animals/other fossil animals. I think I remember reading about that in one of the initial estimate of baramins papers. Fossils are more messy than living things, because hybridization data isn't present. I'm not sure how the flood boundaries would affect anything about baramins other than maybe making sure are the fossils parts are associated properly.

HMS_Beagle
08-13-2014, 07:26 PM
Hi again. Unfortunately it's cases like these that would require massive in-depth study for me to be able to parse YEC/non-YEC preference of them :sad:. For reference



That was an awful lot of words to say "YECs can't explain the data and aren't even going to try". :wink:

The problem for YECs is that science can explain the consilience of the data in a clear and logically consistent manner.

Still wondering about the YEC mechanism for all those different horse chromosomal counts.

jordanriver
08-13-2014, 08:16 PM
I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) .........
welcome, brother.

Pluto
08-13-2014, 09:01 PM
@Pluto:

Phank gives a concise summary here.

1) Speciation occurs when new species diverge from an extant population, either by a geographical reproductive barrier or within the population (sympatric speciation).

There is no jumping "saltation" of genera, sometimes called by the slang term "hopeful monster".

2) Given enough time (and this a key point!), what would prevent descendant species which undergo more and more speciation from separating into genera? And later into orders? Classes? Phyla?

There is no existing genetic boundary that I can see or imagine.

3) "Baramin" is indeed a concept that has no genetic, hard boundary definition. There is the modern concept of "clades" which a nested sets defined by (apparent -- to an anti-evolutonist) ancestral relationships.

It looks like "baramin" is simply a way of attempting to reify the Genesis word translated "kind".


And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


To ME, the obvious reading of "kind" here is that cows give birth to cow, dogs to dogs, monkeys to monkeys, etc., from one generation to the next. I.e., it obviates the "hopeful monster" notion that anti-evolutionist use occasionally.

If this is indeed what "baramin" or "kind" means, then no evolutionist will have a squawk.

In fact, I can't see any OTHER way to interpret "kind" from the text.

So, now EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF KIND, and how is that notion teased out of the first Genesis story?

4) Expanding on (3), trying to extend "baramin" to a modern notion of taxonomy is TO ME a futile pursuit. Why? Because the Ark story and Ge 1-11 are in fact not detailed in a manner the fits modern taxonomy. It probably made some kind of sense to the ANE, but trying to extrapolate that to the vast body of modern knowledge is (again IMO) "boxing the air."

5) There are wonderful summaries of the findings of geology, biology, genetic, and astronomy available to a broad variety of readers' knowledge. You don't have to go to the primary literature unless you want to fact check. The primary literature on deep time and deep history and biological evolution consist of tens of thousands of publications.

Also a brief divergence -- the evidence for deep time is manifest to anyone who drives through a mountainous region and see complex geology (more than just flat sedimentary layers) or simply looks at the beautiful night sky.

Anyway, I DO appreciate your attempt to address the micro-/macro-evolution boundary issue.

And you're doing it in a thoughtful and unemotional manner. which is rare in this forum.

K54

That's a fair amount of topics to deal with :smile:. Emotion is tool, and a point of data. I try not let it color arguments, but use it as dowsing rod for things I should check thoroughly.

Number 5 depends heavy on the summaries, and this gets into a huge epistemological hurdle that I alluded to earlier, since that would effectively be letting someone else do the primary legwork, and I don't totally trust anybody for that but me :tongue:. I may at some point make a separate thread on this very topic, since this is a theoretical point that is within my scope of interest.

On baramins:

That is a fairly accurate initial assessment. What is usually added to this is that nothing can be a member of multiple baramins. Roughly speaking, the two rules are for baramin checking,

1. If X is a child of Y, X and Y are in the same baramin
2. Nothing is in multiple baramins.

You can use these to derive most strong YEC conclusions like if two things hybridize they are in the same baramin. The first rule is derived as you did it, things produce their own kind. Unfortunately, This also implies that universal common descent means there is only one known baramin, rendering it sorta pointless in that case. The second is to eliminate oddities like double-kinds (what?), and the effect of remixing the double kind back into one of the originals until you have a double kind that is effectively identical to one of the originals, which would be silly.

Typically the concept of a baramin is then extended backwards. X and Y are representative of two different kinds, then there must a fundamental difference between them, such as each kind fulfilling certain key properties. Roughly speaking, if you have a cow, and predecessors must have also been cows, and no predecessor could have been a non-cow. Given that YECs must hold to at least two kinds currently in existence, YEC is inconsistent with universal common descent. (obviously...)

As for the boundary of class/phyla/etc. I guess what it comes down to is how specific each catagory is. For example, if enough time passes that there are 40000 variants of cow or something, but all recognizably cows without substantial change except they won't breed together, and for whatever reason cow-ness is now consider the level of a phyla, then ya, a 'new' phyla can be born. The cow phyla, made large enough to properly encompass all the very similar cows. I'd probably recommend that the number of levels be increased instead however, because cow-ness just doesn't seem phyla level...

Looked at that way, the classifications are a bit orthogonal, the Linnean is just marking similarities and differences, while the baramin attempts to claim something fundamental about it's members. Mostly splitting complaints would be trying to 'mix' the concepts, like I try to do in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, and interpret the higher levels as having some fundamental 'over-baramin' type thing. If you've done any object oriented programming, then think of baramins as really big classes(And species and sub-classes to some limited and not totally accurate way) and then try to put the Linnean categories as abstract classes above them. I think this is why I get a negative vibe off of stuff like 'new phyla'.

Good to know that saltation is refused, and I obviously think that the Bible has important information I need to account for. :pot: (I think this conveys the intended meaning) But that involves another epistemological discussion. Obviously, if you don't think the Bible is reliable, then A. My card tells me that if I'm consistent and looking for what I perceive as your best interest, I should invite you to change and join the fold and B. That sort of discussion would only be a purely theoretical curiosity to you.

I really need to get to bed now, but since HMSBeagle's post is so short, I'll add the response here. If there anything I missed and you want to ask, post away.

@HMSBeagle

I forgot to add that I am looking forward to what's going to be done with it too. Shockingly, one of the YEC websites sort of talks about this very thing today.(Though the mention is more for zebra-donkey hybrids) Following several links, reportedly, there are a cases of a mules giving birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Dunno how reliable it is, but if true, there are probably a lot of very interesting things involving chromosome counts that I look forward to reading about, the curiosity would probably apply even if I wasn't YEC. But yes, going by my current sweeps of YEC lit, the why is unknown, but because of various reasons they think chromosome rearrangement serves a purpose. They also look forward to more research too! lol.

All these other comments really make me want to make a global epistemology thread, but I'll hold off for a while.

HMS_Beagle
08-13-2014, 09:25 PM
@HMSBeagle

I forgot to add that I am looking forward to what's going to be done with it too. Shockingly, one of the YEC websites sort of talks about this very thing today.(Though the mention is more for zebra-donkey hybrids) Following several links, reportedly, there are a cases of a mules giving birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Dunno how reliable it is, but if true, there are probably a lot of very interesting things involving chromosome counts that I look forward to reading about, the curiosity would probably apply even if I wasn't YEC. But yes, going by my current sweeps of YEC lit, the why is unknown, but because of various reasons they think chromosome rearrangement serves a purpose. They also look forward to more research too! lol.

All these other comments really make me want to make a global epistemology thread, but I'll hold off for a while.

Sorry, didn't mean to keep you up too late.

The genetic mechanisms of chromosomal fusion / splitting are pretty well known. The problem is how do you compress all the variation between equine species we have now into only 4500 years. How do you get a fusion / split event to be fixed in the entire population in that short a time. Just one of many basic show-stoppers YEC can't begin to deal with.

To cut to the chase, baraminology is a bunch of unscientific hooey. It's just another lame attempt by literal Genesis believers to mangle science until it fits their preconceived beliefs. Ain't gonna work. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. The fact is I can post scientific papers with evidence of common descent over deep time every day for years and not even scratch the surface of what's available. Transitional fossil sequences and phylogenetic relationships that kill YEC "kinds" deader than dead. Papers and evidence you won't be able to explain with a YEC paradigm no matter how good your Google-fu. Even more than that, evolution has consilience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience) of the evidence - multiple lines of independent research and results that lead to one common conclusion.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers and intelligent writing style but the bottom line is evolution has all the positive evidence, baraminology and YEC have none. Evolution wins. I'm willing to stay and discuss specifics as much as you like if there's anything you're particularly interested in.

Get some rest.

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 10:08 AM
Before you get too enamored with your fitness landscape let me bring you back from the theoretical to the empirical. You say there were created 'kinds" or "baramins" that are not related by common descent. However we have lots of fossil and genetic empirical evidence that says common descent is true. For example, ask any YEC and they'll tell you the cat "kind" and the dog "kind" are two unique groups. But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/07/article-2535216-1A785B5B00000578-77_634x514.jpg

The problem for baraminologists is there are hundreds of examples of species like this at the common divergence point that don't fit into either baramin. Or fit into both depending on your assessment.

That sort of evidence needs an explanation.

I'm still curious as to how all those horse "kinds" managed to acquire such different chromosomal arrangements in such a short time. I also would like to hear you speak more about how not knowing the Flood boundary line isn't a huge problem when interpreting fossils for their "baramin".

Thanks for getting to what you can.man what a cool picture. I think that's why I loved evolution so much. They always had the coolest art.
The article says, like so many do, "scientists unearthed"
I always wondered 'how deep' in the earth.
They never say. Unless they publish a book with more details.

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 10:14 AM
man what a cool picture. I think that's why I loved evolution so much. They always had the coolest art.
The article says, like so many do, "scientists unearthed"
I always wondered 'how deep' in the earth.
They never say. Unless they publish a book with more details.

The actual paper in the mainstream journal generally has that level of detail. Most finds are eroded out with parts exposed on the surface which is how they were discovered in the first place. The rest has to be "unearthed" which almost always means chiseled out of solid rock.

phank
08-14-2014, 10:17 AM
Looked at that way, the classifications are a bit orthogonal, the Linnean is just marking similarities and differences, while the baramin attempts to claim something fundamental about it's members. Mostly splitting complaints would be trying to 'mix' the concepts, like I try to do in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, and interpret the higher levels as having some fundamental 'over-baramin' type thing. If you've done any object oriented programming, then think of baramins as really big classes(And species and sub-classes to some limited and not totally accurate way) and then try to put the Linnean categories as abstract classes above them. I think this is why I get a negative vibe off of stuff like 'new phyla'.

The Linnaean approach, like any approach to taxonomy, has advantages and disadvantages. All approaches are to some degree arbitrary, in that they try to simplify something complex.

One problem with the Linnaean approach is that every organism that has ever lived is a member of a species. The higher level groupings of genus, family, order, class etc. are useful for sorting, but don't really describe a process very well. This is the main reason for the development of cladistics. Clades are roughly parallel to Linnaean levels, except that every level of a clade is a species. Clades focus on branches, on the common ancestor of two (or more) subclades.

So what IS a phylum, anyway? How is one phylum distinct from another? Basically, if those pondering the available evidence decide that some body plan is sufficiently different from another at some basic level, then these belong to different phyla. For cladistics, if you go back in time far enough, you will have an individual species which was the common ancestor of two phyla, just like subsequently a species was the common ancestor of two classes, and some member species of that class was common ancestor of two orders, etc. Except cladistics doesn't use these classifications, but merely maps out lineages and branches. The superposition of Linnaean categories is too arbitrary. But with cladistics, the conceptual underpinning of a baramin simply disappears.

The key difficulty with cladistics is insufficient data. Cladists simply can not know which ancient species was the actual parent of which child species. Even with homo sapiens, in which people seem to have particular interest and in which the fossil evidence is relatively rich, there's nothing close to certainty about which species branched into which subsequent species. But note that with respect to baramins, there is no need to know exactly which species was the parent of two baramins. All that's necessary is to observe that said species existed, and HAD to exist.

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 10:23 AM
The actual paper in the mainstream journal generally has that level of detail. Most finds are eroded out with parts exposed on the surface which is how they were discovered in the first place. The rest has to be "unearthed" which almost always means chiseled out of solid rock.

Yeah, probably above the surface.
That's how Mary Leakey found Zinj
That's how Johanson found Lucy.

phank
08-14-2014, 10:43 AM
Yeah, probably above the surface.
That's how Mary Leakey found Zinj
That's how Johanson found Lucy.

Also common are discoveries made in excavations for buildings, or cuts through mountains for highways.

Jorge
08-14-2014, 11:42 AM
But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/07/article-2535216-1A785B5B00000578-77_634x514.jpg



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!! :lmbo: :rofl: :lol: :lmbo:

Isn't it amazing what unrestrained imagination, artistic license,
various brushes and a few gallons of paint can cook up?

Wanna hear the really funny part: they then call this
quackery "science" and actually publish it in "prestigious"
"science" journals. And then ... drum roll ... people swallow it
whole, like a greedy fish that's been fasting for weeks.

Ignorant dad's then tell their kids, "See, son ... this was what
your great-great-great-... great grandaddy looked like." And
the wide-eyed kid responds, "Woooooooowwwwww!" The
father, now proud of his "science-ready" kid, lights a cigar. Fade to black ...

Hey, I have to admit - that snout does have a resemblance to many
Materialists/ Atheists/ Humanists and even some Theistic Evolutionists. :lol:

Jorge

phank
08-14-2014, 12:01 PM
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!! :lmbo: :rofl: :lol: :lmbo:

Isn't it amazing what unrestrained imagination, artistic license,
various brushes and a few gallons of paint can cook up?As usual, you forgot to mention the genetic and fossil evidence. Which is to say, you ignored everything you quoted. There's a word for people who ignore all evidence.

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 12:52 PM
As usual, you forgot to mention the genetic and fossil evidence. Which is to say, you ignored everything you quoted. There's a word for people who ignore all evidence.I couldn't find that, I looked at the National Geographic account of the discovery also and could not find where they had DNA or genetic evidence from Dormaal
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140109-dormaalocyon-latouri-fossil-carnivore-science/

klaus54
08-14-2014, 01:17 PM
man what a cool picture. I think that's why I loved evolution so much. They always had the coolest art.
The article says, like so many do, "scientists unearthed"
I always wondered 'how deep' in the earth.
They never say. Unless they publish a book with more details.

Where you think evolutionists get the inspiration for such?

Could it be the discipline of paleontology? Naw, probably just their imaginations run wild. Evolutionists LOVE to make up stuff when necessary to support their ideology.

It IS a cool pic though!

K54

klaus54
08-14-2014, 01:18 PM
Yeah, probably above the surface.
That's how Mary Leakey found Zinj
That's how Johanson found Lucy.

Erosion is a difficult concept to get one's head around.

Almost as hard as Quantum Mechanics.

K54

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 01:41 PM
I couldn't find that, I looked at the National Geographic account of the discovery also and could not find where they had DNA or genetic evidence from Dormaal
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140109-dormaalocyon-latouri-fossil-carnivore-science/

The DNA / genetic evidence is from extant cats and dogs showing a divergence time of approx. 55 MYA.

http://bvvcarnivora.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/phylo.png

This matches the fossil Dormaakocyon's age. The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids

It's more of that consilience of evidence that YECs are so afraid of.

Jorge
08-14-2014, 02:01 PM
As usual, you forgot to mention the genetic and fossil evidence. Which is to say, you ignored everything you quoted. There's a word for people who ignore all evidence.

Awww, isn't that cute - Phankestein is trying to school me on "genetic and fossil evidence".

I sincerely/honestly/truthfully/no-joking-around pity folk like Phank. Why? Well, they are products of an "education" system that failed them miserably. That is combined with the intellectual inability to escape from that imposed ignorance. Last but not least, they haven't the humility nor the wisdom to bow before the Creator and ask for His help and direction to rid them from the curse that they live in.

There are lots of fine people that will help you when you are 'ready', Phank.

Jorge

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 02:04 PM
Also common are discoveries made in excavations for buildings, or cuts through mountains for highways.ah, ok
Since I am mostly interested in HOMINID fossil finds, I tried to see if anything like that was in highway tunnels, but the only tunnels I could find were from the archaeological site at Sima de los Huesos, where railway cuts were made in the Atapuerca Mountains of Spain, ...
.....found 28 hominin skeletons
Very interesting, but confusing (I confuse easily)

They discovered what they first thought might be H heidelbergensis, but the strata (based on underlying sand and silt) would be 780 k
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10727965


"But a genetic analysis of the bones told a different story. Meyer found traces of Denisovan DNA, a Neanderthal cousin that lived around 40,000 years ago in east Asia. Scientists don’t know what they looked like; only two Denisovan teeth and a finger bone have ever been identified. Finding traces of their DNA in a Neanderthal-looking skeleton, thousands of miles and years from their known whereabouts, was surprising, Meyer said.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/turns-out-humans-are-complete-mongrels/

ok, so they figured out how to reconcile the difference in strata age with the species type they discovered, the got some DNA from the bone:



They drilled into a hominin thigh bone from the cave and extracted 1.95 grams of material, processed it for DNA, and filtered out a large amount of modern human DNA – the bones had been heavily contaminated as they were removed and handled.

The end result was a near-complete mitochondrial genome – the DNA found inside the organelles that power cells. By comparing it with that of modern humans, chimpanzees and bonobos, plus Neanderthals and Denisovans, Meyer estimated its age at 400,000 years, twice as old as our own species and far older than any hominin genome previously sequenced (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature12788). The Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes sequenced in recent years are each around 40,000 years old.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029462.600-oldest-human-genome-dug-up-in-spains-pit-of-bones.html?page=1#.U-0Y7ukg9Y8

ok but not so fast


Did they get the whole genome of a 400,000-year-old human?

Far from it. They only got DNA from the mitochondria of the human in question. Quick mitochondria refresher: these are blobs in our cells that generate fuel for us. They carry their own genes because they were once free-living bacteria. Each cell has hundreds of mitochondria, each with a nearly identical collection of DNA. Sperm don’t pass mitochondria to eggs in fertilization, so we all get mitochondria from our moms.

Mitochondria is an easier place to look for ancient DNA than the nucleus, where we keep the vast majority of our DNA, because every cell has hundreds of copies of mitochondrial DNA and just one of the nuclear genome. The scientists got the entire mitochondrial genome from the human fossil. But that’s just 16,000 base pairs–tiny compared to the 3.2 billion in the nuclear genome.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/04/an-ancient-mysterious-scrap-of-human-dna/

but what about contamination?


When they finally moved onto the hominins, they needed almost two grams of bone to get enough DNA.

The biggest problem was contamination. There was so little DNA left in the bone that it was swamped by DNA from the scientists who dug up the fossils and ran the experiments, despite their precautionary measures. The team weeded out these modern sequences by searching for those in which cytosine residues had been transformed into uracil—a distinctive type of damage that accrues in ancient DNA. Eventually, the scientists extracted enough authentically ancient sequences to reconstruct 98 percent of the individual’s mitochondrial genome.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38521/title/Oldest-Hominin-DNA-Ever-Sequenced/

ok, so what is confusing me the most, why do they think they got this nailed if they don't have any nuclear DNA, but basing it only on the mtDNA.

whats so reliable about that?

Kristian Joensen
08-14-2014, 02:05 PM
"The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids"

What reason are there to think that such similar morphological features in an older fossil imply ancestry?

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 02:10 PM
The DNA / genetic evidence is from extant cats and dogs showing a divergence time of approx. 55 MYA.

http://bvvcarnivora.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/phylo.png

This matches the fossil Dormaakocyon's age. The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids

It's more of that consilience of evidence that YECs are so afraid of.

well I am here to learn

by the way, which DNA is this chart based on, nuclear or mtDNA

Jorge
08-14-2014, 02:10 PM
The DNA / genetic evidence is from extant cats and dogs showing a divergence time of approx. 55 MYA.

http://bvvcarnivora.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/phylo.png

This matches the fossil Dormaakocyon's age. The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!! :lmbo: :rofl: :lol: :lmbo:

Isn't it amazing what unrestrained imagination, artistic license,
assorted brushes, a few gallons of paint, Photoshop, some
graphics software and a lot of cuttin'-n-pastin' can cook up?



It's more of that consilience of evidence that YECs are so afraid of.

Yeah ... oh, yeah ... we's be a'terrified of all that "consilient evidence". :eek: :eek:

NOT !!!

Jorge

Jorge
08-14-2014, 02:12 PM
well I am here to learn

by the way, which DNA is this chart based on, nuclear or mtDNA

It's a new system called bsDNA. :whistle:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, just ignore. I'm merely getting in a few laughs before calling it a day.

Jorge

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 02:15 PM
It's a new system called bsDNA. :whistle:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, just ignore. I'm merely getting in a few laughs before calling it a day.

Jorge

do I think that's funny.

I admit nothing and I deny everything.

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 02:19 PM
Well, we had a whole week of Jorge not acting like a horse's ass.

Looks like now he's back to normal. :ahem:

phank
08-14-2014, 02:20 PM
ok, so what is confusing me the most, why do they think they got this nailed if they don't have any nuclear DNA, but basing it only on the mtDNA.

whats so reliable about that?

They certainly do not think they have anything nailed. The entire latest issue of Scientific American is about this very issue, and interestingly enough the introduction to that issue (written most recently) speaks of a MAJOR find in a cave in South Africa that threatens to rewrite much of what was previously thought most likely. Reconstructing the past is something very hard to do in terms of specifics.

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 02:27 PM
They certainly do not think they have anything nailed. The entire latest issue of Scientific American is about this very issue, and interestingly enough the introduction to that issue (written most recently) speaks of a MAJOR find in a cave in South Africa that threatens to rewrite much of what was previously thought most likely. Reconstructing the past is something very hard to do in terms of specifics.
well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 02:30 PM
"The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids"

What reason are there to think that such similar morphological features in an older fossil imply ancestry?

It's called homology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29) and it's a fundamental indicator of common descent. For example, canids and felids have a very similar bone structure that makes up their paws. Generally speaking the closer the overall homology the closer the two species are related by common descent. There are outliers and exceptions of course.

shunyadragon
08-14-2014, 02:36 PM
well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

Use the internet, it's cheap.

phank
08-14-2014, 02:36 PM
well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

Generally, textbooks are quite inexpensive compared to subscriptions to the most important journals. Usually these are affordable only by specialized libraries. And this is small potatoes compared to the cost in sheer hours per day trying to keep up with your own field, much less all of biology (which nobody can keep up with). By the time any scientific knowledge is solid enough to reduce to layman terms, it's going to be at least somewhat obsolete.

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 02:41 PM
well I am here to learn

by the way, which DNA is this chart based on, nuclear or mtDNA

This paper contains a much more detailed phylogenetic tree of the Carnivora


Dogs, cats, and kin: A molecular species-level phylogeny of Carnivora (http://ezlab.zrc-sazu.si/uploads/2011/05/Agnarssonal2010_Carnivora.pdf)
Agnarsson et al
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol 54 - 3, March 2010, 726–745

Abstract: Phylogenies underpin comparative biology as high-utility tools to test evolutionary and biogeographic hypotheses, inform on conservation strategies, and reveal the age and evolutionary histories of traits and lineages. As tools, most powerful are those phylogenies that contain all, or nearly all, of the taxa of a given group. Despite their obvious utility, such phylogenies, other than summary ‘supertrees’, are currently lacking for most mammalian orders, including the order Carnivora. Carnivora consists of about 270 extant species including most of the world’s large terrestrial predators (e.g., the big cats, wolves, bears), as well as many of man’s favorite wild (panda, cheetah, tiger) and domesticated animals (dog, cat). Distributed globally, carnivores are highly diverse ecologically, having occupied all major habitat types on the planet and being diverse in traits such as sociality, communication, body/brain size, and foraging ecology. Thus, numerous studies continue to address comparative questions within the order, highlighting the need for a detailed species-level phylogeny. Here we present a phylogeny of Carnivora that increases taxon sampling density from 28% in the most detailed primary-data study to date, to 82% containing 243 taxa (222 extant species, 17 subspecies). In addition to extant species, we sampled four extinct species: American cheetah, saber-toothed cat, cave bear and the giant short-faced bear. Bayesian analysis of cytochrome b sequences data-mined from GenBank results in a phylogenetic hypothesis that is largely congruent with prior studies based on fewer taxa but more characters. We find support for the monophyly of Carnivora, its major division into Caniformia and Feliformia, and for all but one family within the order. The only exception is the placement of the kinkajou outside Procyonidae, however, prior studies have already cast doubt on its family placement. In contrast, at the subfamily and genus level, our results indicate numerous problems with current classification. Our results also propose new, controversial hypotheses, such as the possible placement of the red panda (Ailuridae) sister to canids (Canidae). Our results confirm previous findings suggesting that the dog was domesticated from the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus lupus) and are congruent with the Near East domestication of the cat. In sum, this study presents the most detailed species-level phylogeny of Carnivora to date and a much needed tool for comparative studies of carnivoran species. To demonstrate one such use, we perform a phylogenetic analysis of evolutionary distinctiveness (EDGE), which can be used to help establish conservation priorities. According with those criteria, and under one of the many possible sets of parameters, the highest priority Carnivora species for conservation of evolutionary diversity include: monk seals, giant and red panda, giant otter, otter civet, Owston’s palm civet, sea otter, Liberian mongoose, spectacled bear, walrus, binturong, and the fossa.

Never mind the braying ass from Central Florida. Making noise and passing gas is all he knows.

Kristian Joensen
08-14-2014, 02:54 PM
It's called homology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29) and it's a fundamental indicator of common descent. For example, canids and felids have a very similar bone structure that makes up their paws. Generally speaking the closer the overall homology the closer the two species are related by common descent. There are outliers and exceptions of course.

Why conclude from the similar bone structure of the paws of felids and canids that they had a common ancestor? Does Old Earth Creationism and/or Young Earth Creationism and/or Intelligent Design predict dissimilar bone structures in their paws?

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 03:06 PM
Why conclude from the similar bone structure of the paws of felids and canids that they had a common ancestor? Does Old Earth Creationism and/or Young Earth Creationism and/or Intelligent Design predict dissimilar bone structures in their paws?

Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them. If we found very different paw structures in dogs and cats it would falsify their common ancestry by evolution but to Creationists it would be "God did it that way just because!".

Kristian Joensen
08-14-2014, 03:20 PM
Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them. If we found very different paw structures in dogs and cats it would falsify their common ancestry by evolution but to Creationists it would be "God did it that way just because!".

"Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them."

So the presence of homologies is perfectly compatible with Creationism and hence can't be used to adjudicate between Creationism and Evolution or what? Can you use something that Creationists agree with to argue for Evolution?

klaus54
08-14-2014, 03:25 PM
"The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids"

What reason are there to think that such similar morphological features in an older fossil imply ancestry?

What reason would there be to think otherwise?

This evidence that has to be explained, and it supports the hypothesis of common (or close to common) ancestry.

Can you think of an alternate hypothesis?

Just a reminder that hypotheses are supported by not proved.

K54

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 03:27 PM
"Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them."

So the presence of homologies is perfectly compatible with Creationism and hence can't be used to adjudicate between Creationism and Evolution or what? Can you use something that Creationists agree with to argue for Evolution?

It's a matter of weighted inferences. There are billions of different patterns God could have used in Special Creation and only one possible by evolution. We investigate and find that one. That's pretty strong evidence for evolution. Not proof but strong positive evidence.

klaus54
08-14-2014, 03:41 PM
"Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them."

So the presence of homologies is perfectly compatible with Creationism and hence can't be used to adjudicate between Creationism and Evolution or what? Can you use something that Creationists agree with to argue for Evolution?

The problem is ANYTHING is compatible with creationism since God can do ANYTHING HE WANTS.

Two big issues that creationists need to address:

1) It's impossible to do any kind of "historical" science with this view. Creationists have obviated scientific method when applied to the astronomical, geologic, and biological past. Why? Because there is no framework for testing hypotheses -- there is no consilience in the analysis of evidence.

And if creationists WERE to generate two "hypotheses" that contradicted other each, the would be no problem cuz "God done did it that way."

2) Creationists themselves don't agree on a lot of key points in Bible interpretation (I've been trying to get some creationist to give an unambiguous literal reading of the first Genesis story that means the same thing to our modern scientific culture as to the ANE.)

For example in the Flood story, creationists give wildly different answers to the location of the Flood boundary in the geologic column. If they can't even do that, how could one expect that to do stratigraphy? And you need stratigraphy to do paleontology.

K54

P.S. What's the creationist hypothesis to explain Dormaalocyon latouri?

That's right -- they don't have one AND don't need one.

Isn't that correct, Jorge?

Kristian Joensen
08-14-2014, 05:27 PM
What reason would there be to think otherwise?

This evidence that has to be explained, and it supports the hypothesis of common (or close to common) ancestry.

Can you think of an alternate hypothesis?

Just a reminder that hypotheses are supported by not proved.

K54

Common design could be one option. Freak accidents could be another. But you don't have to have an explanation you could leave it unexplained.

HMS_Beagle, some times you see people pointing to things like homologies as if they do or should somehow count against Creationism or cause people to reject Creationism. I am questioning if that is a proper way to use such data. If homologies are compatible with Creationism, as you seem to accept, then how can they be used to argue against it?

HMS_Beagle
08-14-2014, 05:38 PM
Common design could be one option. Freak accidents could be another. But you don't have to have an explanation you could leave it unexplained.

But we do have an explanation - one that's been confirmed many times over.


HMS_Beagle, some times you see people pointing to things like homologies as if they do or should somehow count against Creationism or cause people to reject Creationism. I am questioning if that is a proper way to use such data. If homologies are compatible with Creationism, as you seem to accept, then how can they be used to argue against it?

Homologies don't count against creationism because nothing can count against what an omnipotent Deity could do. They just don't count as positive evidence for creationism because creationism doesn't predict or require homologies. ToE does both. Combine the homologies with all the rest of the consilient evidence (genetics, radiometric dating, geologly, paleontology, etc.) and you get a pretty bulletproof case for common descent over deep time.

klaus54
08-14-2014, 07:20 PM
Common design could be one option. Freak accidents could be another. But you don't have to have an explanation you could leave it unexplained.

HMS_Beagle, some times you see people pointing to things like homologies as if they do or should somehow count against Creationism or cause people to reject Creationism. I am questioning if that is a proper way to use such data. If homologies are compatible with Creationism, as you seem to accept, then how can they be used to argue against it?

Well, "Common Design" is not epistemologically different to "God did it". God just designed the taxonomy that way. It is because it is.

But I suppose this is consistent with the YEC/anti-evolutionist notion of "historical science" vis-a-vis "operational science" that's used as ruse to ignore paleontology, structural geology, radiometric dating, ...

Anti-evolutionists screech that evolution is "unfalsiable". Bunk. Complete projection. "Common Design" is COMPLETELY unfalsiable, because whatever is, is.

Since scientists are interested in falsifiable hypotheses to explain data and broader frameworks called "theories" -- you'd have to pardon us for "explanations" which are none of this.

K54

P.S. What's the difference between Common Design and stamp-collecting?

klaus54
08-14-2014, 07:33 PM
...
Homologies don't count against creationism because nothing can count against what an omnipotent Deity could do. They just don't count as positive evidence for creationism because creationism doesn't predict or require homologies. ToE does both. Combine the homologies with all the rest of the consilient evidence (genetics, radiometric dating, geologly, paleontology, etc.) and you get a pretty bulletproof case for common descent over deep time.

Bingo!!!

Nothing can falsifying "God just done diddly did it that way."

Ergo, any and all data fit with creationism.

Natural science actually takes effort.

So people like Jorge can spend their days learning just enough about the theory of evolution to spin the data and find new ways to propagandize - and they always have goddidit as an exit strategy.

K54

phank
08-14-2014, 07:47 PM
Anti-evolutionists screech that evolution is "unfalsiable". Bunk. Complete projection. "Common Design" is COMPLETELY unfalsiable, because whatever is, is.

There's a certain mindset that has real difficulties with provisional, tentative explanations subject to change at any time. These people struggle with uncertainty, and would much rather be wrong than uncertain. After all, certainty rules out any recognition of error, so it's a win-win. The problem with evolutionary theory is, it keeps getting expanded, modified, extended, and refined. Darwin would recognize relatively little of the theory today, but it is STILL called "evolution". So the screech that it's unfalsifiable reflects this continuity of terminology across fairly large changes. The argument goes, if massive new data were to show that the theory is somehow profoundly misguided and requires substantial repositioning, it would STILL be called the theory of evolution, which means it's not falsifiable!

Creationists are kind of fixed on words. God did not poof reality into existence, he SPOKE it into existence. In religionland, SAYING something is true MAKES it true. How else could it be when all relevant evidence is either absent or uncongenial?

jordanriver
08-14-2014, 09:51 PM
There's a certain mindset that has real difficulties with provisional, tentative explanations subject to change at any time. These people struggle with uncertainty, and would much rather be wrong than uncertain. After all, certainty rules out any recognition of error, so it's a win-win. The problem with evolutionary theory is, it keeps getting expanded, modified, extended, and refined. Darwin would recognize relatively little of the theory today, but it is STILL called "evolution". So the screech that it's unfalsifiable reflects this continuity of terminology across fairly large changes. The argument goes, if massive new data were to show that the theory is somehow profoundly misguided and requires substantial repositioning, it would STILL be called the theory of evolution, which means it's not falsifiable

.yeah, it's like the Lernaean Hydra
cut off one head ...2 grow back

Jorge
08-15-2014, 10:35 AM
The problem is ANYTHING is compatible with creationism since God can do ANYTHING HE WANTS.

Two big issues that creationists need to address:
blah
blah
blah.
.
.



One more time, you are W-R-O-N-G - a product of your atrocious theology.

God CANNOT do whatever He wants. E.g., God cannot lie. God cannot sin. God cannot do anything that causes Him to contradict Himself.

All of that, by the way, is what makes (real) science possible.
I do not expect - not even close - for you to understand much less accept any of this.

Jorge

klaus54
08-15-2014, 11:15 AM
One more time, you are W-R-O-N-G - a product of your atrocious theology.

God CANNOT do whatever He wants. E.g., God cannot lie. God cannot sin. God cannot do anything that causes Him to contradict Himself.

All of that, by the way, is what makes (real) science possible.
I do not expect - not even close - for you to understand much less accept any of this.

Jorge

But "goddidit" can explain anything YEC can't explain about astrophysics, paleontology, geology... You know, them there "historical" sciences.

BTW, "real" sciences are evidently those with conclusions that support your YEC Bible reading, which BTW, I still can't get you to give.

"Moving the goalposts" makes kicking field goals much easier, dunnit?

K54

klaus54
08-15-2014, 11:18 AM
.yeah, it's like the Lernaean Hydra
cut off one head ...2 grow back

Funny how that works. It's amazing what design can do, eh?

'Cept you can't have design and evolution together, right?

Shucks. That would make reality oh so much easier to understand.

K54

P.S. I believe the term you're looking for is "heuristic".

Your YEC "science" is anti-heuristic.

Jorge
08-16-2014, 01:07 PM
But "goddidit" can explain anything YEC can't explain about astrophysics, paleontology, geology... You know, them there "historical" sciences.

BTW, "real" sciences are evidently those with conclusions that support your YEC Bible reading, which BTW, I still can't get you to give.

"Moving the goalposts" makes kicking field goals much easier, dunnit?

K54

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Jorge

klaus54
08-16-2014, 02:02 PM
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Jorge

(according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

:lol:

K54

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 03:31 PM
Funny how that works. It's amazing what design can do, eh?

'Cept you can't have design and evolution together, right?

Shucks. That would make reality oh so much easier to understand.

K54.?
what an odd reply to someone like me.
I am the one who sees evolution AS DESIGN.

I am the one who concludes that that mechanism AKA "evolution" is there ON PURPOSE to serve as a fail-safe in a *natural* world where bad things happen.

a fail-safe, which "...means not that failure is impossible/improbable, but rather that the system's design prevents or mitigates unsafe consequences of the system's failure. That is, if and when a "fail-safe" system "fails", it is "safe" or at least no less safe than when it is operating correctly" (wiki)

that means it doesn't always succeed, but it succeeds just enough for a *natural* world thats gonna be temporary anyway.


I.M.H.O., if there was a period of time where beginning life in the early *natural* world did not have that survival mechanism **STRESS-INDUCED** MUTAGENESIS and EPIGENETICS with DNA METHYLATION.....,

... it would have been impossible to survive.

...edited to add,
and oh yes, the improvisations would look "jury-rigged", just like my father-in-law's appliances and vehicles, they don't look like they did ages ago when they were created, but he "don't throw away nuthin" so coat hangar wire, band-aids , whatever, he adjusts them to adapt to new situations.

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 05:31 PM
"Moving the goalposts" makes kicking field goals much easier, dunnit?
K54
are you projecting?

speaking of moving the goal posts, is there going to be an eventual time limit for the 'fishapod' crawling out of the water, or are you going to add another 20 more million years each time you find tetrapods that existed before your fishapods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/


oh, well, whats a million years in light of billions to work with, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real time.

and then there was the Nested Hierarchy goal post

Potential Falsification:
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

well it happened,

"gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

already posted this BTW, here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2991-Great-New-AronRa-video-Evolution-is-a-fact&p=86112&viewfull=1#post86112)

and like The Borg, Talk Origins adjusted and now have a nice new bush instead of Darwin's Tree and the cladistic tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution/evolutionvines.jpg
1684

ok, that's ok, but where is the goal post now?

How about the biochemical goal post, the FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT, for divergence modern humans and other apes.

THE FOSSIL TRAIL Ian Tattersall ISBN 0195061012
p 124-125
...What really upset the morphologists, however, was that Sarich and Wilson used the internal consistencies that they perceived in their data set to argue that the albumin molecule changed at a constant rate. Thus, they claimed, the "immunological distances" between species based on this molecule could be used to calculate the time that had lapsed since they had shared a common ancestor. This added insult to injury. Not only were the biochemists usurping the traditional function of the morphologists in determining relationships, but they were now moving in on the paleontologists, the guardians of the time element in evolution!
Still worse, at a time when the 14 myr old Ramapithecus had finally established ascendency as a human ancestor, Sarich and Wilson's time estimates were totally at variance with this prevailing wisdom. The "molecular clock" needs to be calibrated using one date taken from the fossil record, and the date chosen by Sarich and Wilson for this purpose was one that was palatable to most paleontologists of the day: 30 myr for the last common ancestor of the apes and the Old World monkeys. The date that this yielded for the last ancestor of humans and the African apes was not, however, palatable at all: about 5 myr.
BUT THEY COMPROMISED to the morphologists (the paleoanthropologists) and added a few more million years

continuing Tattersall's The Fossil Trail
In later publications Sarich and Wilson softened this divergence date a little, but they yielded nothing on principle. Indeed, in 1971 Sarich wrote, in one of the most breathtakingly provocative and undiplomatic statements in the history of human evolutionary studies, that "one no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid "no matter what it looks like."

five million to eight million, A SIXTY PERCENT INCREASE to accommodate the powerful paleoanthropologist lobby..

....and a good thing too, for them, otherwise you could forget about Sahelanthropus tchadensis @7mya and Orrorin tugenensis @6mya.

Powerful paleoanthropologist families like the Leakeys resisted Sarich and Wilson's molecular clock:
...oh, and this next source is also a reply to your earlier claim that creationists don't know about the hominid fossil record

klaus54 posted:
But if you want to exclude that humans have non-human ancestors, then you are still are stuck with the task of explaining the vast majority of the rock and fossil record. I.e., evolution spanning a time interval over 1,000 times longer than the (according to not just YOU, but all anti-evolutionists, non-existing) record of Hominid evolution.
were you projecting that time too.
I think some of us creationists have read a little about it
I KNOW there is quite a large collection of "hominid" fossils. I read about Donald Johanson's drawer after drawer of mostly Hadar fossils (in Cleveland), and an interesting account of Stephen Jay Gould's visit (Gould recovering from Cancer) to Richard Leakey's Nairobi "Hominid Vault" in Delta Willis's 'The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Origins':

'THE HOMINID GANG Behind the Scenes in The Search For Human Origins' Delta Willis (with an introduction by Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0670828084
P 127-128 (Leakey has been showing Gould specimens from various drawers, the 30 million year drawers, the 14 million years, and...
"...From fourteen million years ago, Leakey moves to eight million -- though the source remains the Samburu Hills; the fossil in question is from younger sediments. "This is probably one of the most enigmatic specimens in the room" Leakey begins. "It's a very odd animal. Whatever it is," he adds, "it's the closest thing we have to something brand new at the other end of the fossil gap." First, Leakey lays out the teeth, black as pearls. They're huge, with deep facets, like those of a pig. "If you found those alone," Leakey says, "you'd think it was a suid [pig]." Gould agrees: "Historically, there's always been this problem distinguishing pig teeth from hominid teeth -- like the famous Hesperopithecus," the Nebraska Man-cum-pig. Next, Leakey adds a jawbone, then a few fragments of cheekbones: "But if you view them together, its a primate." Leakey then suggests that it may be a hominid.

"But doesn't its age of eight million make it an impossibility, as a hominid, I mean -- with the biochemical dates suggesting the split around six?" Gould refers to the date of divergence suggested by the molecular clock.

"It's a fudge you can allow." Leakey doubts the biochemical dates. "It may well be one of the earliest hominids -- probably is."

But at least Richard Leakey did eventually concede and cited the original FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT:


THE ORIGIN OF HUMANKIND' Richard Leakey 1994 ISBN 0465031358
p 7-8
"...In the late 1960s, two biochemists at the University fo California, Berkeley, Allan Wilson and Vincent Sarich, came to a very different conclusion about when the first human species evolved. Instead of working with fossils, they compared the structure of certain blood proteins from living humans and African apes. Their aim was to determine the degree of structural difference between human and ape proteins--a difference that should increase at a calculable rate with time, as a result of mutation. The longer humans and apes had been separate species, the greater number of mutations that would have accumulated. Wilson and Sarich calculated the mutation rate and were therefore able to use their blood-protein data as a molecular clock.

According to the clock, the first human species evolved only about 5 million years ago, a finding that was dramatically at variance with the 15 or 30 million years of prevailing anthropological theory...."

"...A mighty dispute erupted, with anthropologists and biochemists criticizing each other's professional techniques in the strongest language. Wilson and Sarich's conclusion was criticized on the ground, among others, that their molecular clock was erratic and therefore could not be relied upon to give an accurate time for past evolutionary events. Wilson and Sarich, for their part, argued that anthropologists placed too much interpretive weight on small, fragmentary anatomical features, and were thus led to invalid conclusions. I sided with the anthropological community at the time, believing Wilson and Sarich to be incorrect.

SO before you attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, better first remove the beam from your own eyes.

HMS_Beagle
08-16-2014, 05:46 PM
are you projecting?

speaking of moving the goal posts, is there going to be an eventual time limit for the 'fishapod' crawling out of the water, or are you going to add another 20 more million years each time you find tetrapods that existed before your fishapods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/


oh, well, whats a million years in light of billions to work with, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real time.

and then there was the Nested Hierarchy goal post


well it happened,

"gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

already posted this BTW, here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2991-Great-New-AronRa-video-Evolution-is-a-fact&p=86112&viewfull=1#post86112)

and like The Borg, Talk Origins adjusted and now have a nice new bush instead of Darwin's Tree and the cladistic tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution/evolutionvines.jpg
1684

ok, that's ok, but where is the goal post now?

How about the biochemical goal post, the FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT, for divergence modern humans and other apes.

BUT THEY COMPROMISED to the morphologists (the paleoanthropologists) and added a few more million years


five million to eight million, A SIXTY PERCENT INCREASE to accommodate the powerful paleoanthropologist lobby..

....and a good thing too, for them, otherwise you could forget about Sahelanthropus tchadensis @7mya and Orrorin tugenensis @6mya.

Powerful paleoanthropologist families like the Leakeys resisted Sarich and Wilson's molecular clock:
...oh, and this next source is also a reply to your earlier claim that creationists don't know about the hominid fossil record

were you projecting that time too.
I think some of us creationists have read a little about it
I KNOW there is quite a large collection of "hominid" fossils. I read about Donald Johanson's drawer after drawer of mostly Hadar fossils (in Cleveland), and an interesting account of Stephen Jay Gould's visit (Gould recovering from Cancer) to Richard Leakey's Nairobi "Hominid Vault" in Delta Willis's 'The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Origins':


But at least Richard Leakey did eventually concede and cited the original FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT:


SO before you attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, better first remove the beam from your own eyes.

So-so attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it a 5 out of 10.:ahem:

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 05:57 PM
So-so attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it a 5 out of 10.:ahem:

pssst,
um, you're not fooling anybody , sitting there at the judges' table.

everybody knows you're one of the contestants ,

HMS_Beagle
08-16-2014, 06:16 PM
pssst,
um, you're not fooling anybody , sitting there at the judges' table.

everybody knows you're one of the contestants ,

You can't be a judge unless you know the topic better than the competitors. :teeth:

Is there any one thing on that big list of Creationst PRATTS you'd like to see disemboweled yet again? Start a thread on that one thing if so and we'll oblige.

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 06:46 PM
You can't be a judge unless you know the topic better than the competitors. :teeth:

Is there any one thing on that big list of Creationst PRATTS you'd like to see disemboweled yet again? Start a thread on that one thing if so and we'll oblige.list of what?

are my citations on a list somewhere?

where?

klaus54
08-16-2014, 06:51 PM
are you projecting?

speaking of moving the goal posts, is there going to be an eventual time limit for the 'fishapod' crawling out of the water, or are you going to add another 20 more million years each time you find tetrapods that existed before your fishapods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/


oh, well, whats a million years in light of billions to work with, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real time.

and then there was the Nested Hierarchy goal post


well it happened,

"gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

already posted this BTW, here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2991-Great-New-AronRa-video-Evolution-is-a-fact&p=86112&viewfull=1#post86112)

and like The Borg, Talk Origins adjusted and now have a nice new bush instead of Darwin's Tree and the cladistic tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution/evolutionvines.jpg
1684

ok, that's ok, but where is the goal post now?

How about the biochemical goal post, the FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT, for divergence modern humans and other apes.

BUT THEY COMPROMISED to the morphologists (the paleoanthropologists) and added a few more million years


five million to eight million, A SIXTY PERCENT INCREASE to accommodate the powerful paleoanthropologist lobby..

....and a good thing too, for them, otherwise you could forget about Sahelanthropus tchadensis @7mya and Orrorin tugenensis @6mya.

Powerful paleoanthropologist families like the Leakeys resisted Sarich and Wilson's molecular clock:
...oh, and this next source is also a reply to your earlier claim that creationists don't know about the hominid fossil record

were you projecting that time too.
I think some of us creationists have read a little about it
I KNOW there is quite a large collection of "hominid" fossils. I read about Donald Johanson's drawer after drawer of mostly Hadar fossils (in Cleveland), and an interesting account of Stephen Jay Gould's visit (Gould recovering from Cancer) to Richard Leakey's Nairobi "Hominid Vault" in Delta Willis's 'The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Origins':


But at least Richard Leakey did eventually concede and cited the original FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT:



SO before you attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, better first remove the beam from your own eyes.

My answer was not "odd" since your persona is that of an anti-evolutionist.

You're anti-macroevolution, no?

You certainly mock macroevolution.

So my comment was on target.

Oh, well...

K54

klaus54
08-16-2014, 06:53 PM
list of what?

are my citations on a list somewhere?

where?

It's difficult to argue with someone when you don't know their stance.

Go surf to an anti-evolution propaganda site, pick your favorite PRATT, and we'll discuss it.

K54

P.S. That "judgment table" crack sounds familiar.

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 07:11 PM
It's difficult to argue with someone when you don't know their stance.

Go surf to an anti-evolution propaganda site, pick your favorite PRATT, and we'll discuss it.

K54

P.S. That "judgment table" crack sounds familiar.

well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.

ok, ....my "stance"?


why its the same as yours,
....almost

I believe "evolution" is occurring , I think you believe evolution is occurring.


we're just haggling over how many "trunks" of trees, and the shape of the trunks.

klaus54
08-16-2014, 07:28 PM
well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.

ok, ....my "stance"?


why its the same as yours,
....almost

I believe "evolution" is occurring , I think you believe evolution is occurring.


we're just haggling over how many "trunks" of trees, and the shape of the trunks.

So you are an expert on evolution? You know more about the "science" than most "Darwinists" you've met.

Fascinating!

Now, what's a "Darwinist", and did any of them you've met understand the science (no scare quotes) of evolution? Do YOU know the science of evolution?

I doubt.

So, please go to your favorite propaganda site and yank out a PRATT to discuss. Perhaps you can make mince meat of us "Darwinists" here.

Sound like a good deal?

K54

P.S. Don't you mean we agree on the "shoots" but we're haggling over whether the trunks grew from seeds or were plunked in the ground like Hollywood props?

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 07:35 PM
P.S. Don't you mean we agree on the "shoots" but we're haggling over whether the trunks grew from seeds or were plunked in the ground like Hollywood props?

Hollywood??

ehhh, I think more along the lines of a hamster habitat

or a zoo habitat.

meh, , for I all I know this might be a matrix program
...and Bishop George Berkeley was right after all.....

ha, I guess I ended up in Hollywood after all.

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 07:37 PM
So you are an expert on evolution? You know more about the "science" than most "Darwinists" you've met.

Fascinating!





I was one of you.

where you are,

I am a "been there done that"

klaus54
08-16-2014, 07:50 PM
I was one of you.

where you are,

I am a "been there done that"

Wow, you got me there. Who can counter that argument? Our friend Jorge tells us the same thing.

So, I forgot -- did you ever attempt to answer the question about the micro/macro boundary? Since you've "been there done that" you must have had a clear notion of that boundary, else you'd still be doing that.

What is it then?

K54

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 07:59 PM
Wow, you got me there. Who can counter that argument? Our friend Jorge tells us the same thing.

So, I forgot -- did you ever attempt to answer the question about the micro/macro boundary? Since you've "been there done that" you must have had a clear notion of that boundary, else you'd still be doing that.

What is it then?

K54I did answer
I said ZERO

sheesh, I read that the 'god' of this world blinds people, but are you really not seeing my posts?

klaus54
08-16-2014, 08:19 PM
I did answer
I said ZERO

sheesh, I read that the 'god' of this world blinds people, but are you really not seeing my posts?

Well, no boundary then.

I'm wondering why all the fuss and bother from you? You know, the "Darwinists" and "science" remarks. e.g.?

So your contributions to this thread were worthless then, since I asked anti-evolutionist where the boundary was.

I loathe to ask, but I must. Since you believe there's no boundary between micro and macro, then do you have a problem with evolution as being part of the creation process - theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or whatever?

K54

jordanriver
08-16-2014, 08:39 PM
Well, no boundary then.

I'm wondering why all the fuss and bother from you? You know, the "Darwinists" and "science" remarks. e.g.?

So your contributions to this thread were worthless then, since I asked anti-evolutionist where the boundary was.

I loathe to ask, but I must. Since you believe there's no boundary between micro and macro, then do you have a problem with evolution as being part of the creation process - theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or whatever?

K54
as the atheists and agnostics say
I don't know.

I claim I know the first human being was one special 'creation'

I don't know that by any 'scientific' process.

I know it by a different category; HISTORY. (recorded history)

But I do not claim to know how the other animals originated.

some new word I learned this past week, er, "baramin" or something
votever dot mins

I don't know what I don't know.

klaus54
08-16-2014, 09:14 PM
as the atheists and agnostics say
I don't know.

I claim I know the first human being was one special 'creation'

I don't know that by any 'scientific' process.

I know it by a different category; HISTORY. (recorded history)

But I do not claim to know how the other animals originated.

some new word I learned this past week, er, "baramin" or something
votever dot mins

I don't know what I don't know.

So macroevolution is possible, but you don't think it happened because "history" says otherwise? (See I can use scare quotes too!)

Or is that you don't know?

But you do know that humans were specially created, apart from the evolutionary process. Or you don't, Or "history" says otherwise.

You are quite the confusing individual.

K54

P.S. Again, can another anti-evolutionist (but NOT an anti-evolutionist evolutionist like JR) please address the micro/macro question?

rogue06
08-17-2014, 02:08 AM
So macroevolution is possible,
Of course macroevolution is possible -- and has even been observed both in nature and in laboratories.

Macroevolution is defined as being evolutionary change at or above the species level. This means that speciation ( the splitting of a single lineage into two or more genetically independent ones) is by definition a form of macroevolution. And even your major YEC organizations and spokespersons admit that speciation takes place -- some even recognize that this is macroevolution.

Roy
08-17-2014, 02:51 AM
well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.Cool!

6 simple questions. Simple for anyone with a thorough grounding in evolution, anyway. Or even basic research skills.

1) What is the Red Queen hypothesis?

2) What is the Hardy-Weinberg ratio for a species with 3 alleles at one locus?

3) What is a hybrid zone? How does it move if hybrids are selected against?

4) How is reproductive fitness calculated?

5) Give an example of Mullerian mimicry.

6) What is the difference between vicariance and dispersal biogeography?

Let's see if you can do better than JM or Jorge, who also claimed to know all about evolution.

Roy

Jorge
08-17-2014, 03:36 AM
Cool!

6 simple questions. Simple for anyone with a thorough grounding in evolution, anyway. Or even basic research skills.

1) What is the Red Queen hypothesis?

2) What is the Hardy-Weinberg ratio for a species with 3 alleles at one locus?

3) What is a hybrid zone? How does it move if hybrids are selected against?

4) How is reproductive fitness calculated?

5) Give an example of Mullerian mimicry.

6) What is the difference between vicariance and dispersal biogeography?

Let's see if you can do better than JM or Jorge, who also claimed to know all about evolution.

Roy

Your drinking problem is getting much, much worse, Roy.
Your pathological liar problem, on the other hand, remains about the same.

TO WIT: Post here and now, for all to see, where "Jorge claims to know all about Evolution".

What I have and continue to claim (because it's true) is that I understand enough about 'evolution', (real) science, philosophy, mathematics, history, etc. to know precisely what the score is in this debate.

In particular, I know enough to see right through the pack of lies, deceptions and other unethical, amoral, anti-science, anti-biblical God, anti-epistemological practices by Atheists/Humanists/Theistic Evolutionists/others. You know, people just like you and others here on TWeb.

We're waiting for you to post the evidence for "Jorge claims to know all about evolution". :popcorn:

Jorge

Jorge, Stop accusing people who disagree with you with having a substance abuse problems...that goes for everyone else. We are getting tired of the Flame Wars.

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 04:21 AM
So-so attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it a 5 out of 10.:ahem:
what?
I only cited THREE examples.

Look, you cited 'consilience' THREE TIMES in this thread,

and klaus54 cited 'consilience' 2 other times, in Post 40 (httpwww.theologyweb.comcampusshowthread.php3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=87367&viewfull=1#post87367) replying to "Pluto' and Post 91 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88000&viewfull=1#post88000) replying to Kristian

in Post 57 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=87669&viewfull=1#post87669) YOU said "The problem for YECs is that science can explain the consilience of the data in a clear and logically consistent manner."

and you cited consilience again in Post 60 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=87728&viewfull=1#post87728) "Even more than that, evolution has consilience of the evidence - multiple lines of independent research and results that lead to one common conclusion."

and yet again in YOUR Post 71 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=87953&viewfull=1#post87953) "It's more of that consilience of evidence that YECs are so afraid of."

so all I do is cite 3 protests, and you call that the gish gallop?

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 04:22 AM
Cool!

6 simple questions. Simple for anyone with a thorough grounding in evolution, anyway. Or even basic research skills.

1) What is the Red Queen hypothesis?

2) What is the Hardy-Weinberg ratio for a species with 3 alleles at one locus?

3) What is a hybrid zone? How does it move if hybrids are selected against?

4) How is reproductive fitness calculated?

5) Give an example of Mullerian mimicry.

6) What is the difference between vicariance and dispersal biogeography?

Let's see if you can do better than JM or Jorge, who also claimed to know all about evolution.

Roy

HMS_Beagle would call that "The Gish Gallop"

Roy
08-17-2014, 04:45 AM
Your drinking problem is getting much, much worse, Roy.
Your pathological liar problem, on the other hand, remains about the same.
Support that accusation or retract it.


We're waiting for you to post the evidence for "Jorge claims to know all about evolution". :popcorn:On the pre-crash TWeb, those questions were among those submitted following your request for questions that people would like to ask YECs. You stated that you could answer them easily enough, given time to do some research, but didn't see any point in doing so. Are you now saying that you don't know enough about evolution to be able to find the answers?

Roy

Roy
08-17-2014, 04:49 AM
HMS_Beagle would call that "The Gish Gallop"I doubt that.

Your answer is evasive, though. Can you, or can you not, answer those questions?

Roy

JonF
08-17-2014, 05:57 AM
I was one of you.

where you are,

I am a "been there done that"
In 15-ish years of encountering anti-evolutionists I have yet to encounter one who claimed that and was truthful. Many do claim that. You need to provide some evidence of your understanding, not just claim it.

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 06:08 AM
In 15-ish years of encountering anti-evolutionists I have yet to encounter one who claimed that and was truthful. Many do claim that. You need to provide some evidence of your understanding, not just claim it.
?
really?

why?

Is it your experience that people are born creationists, or born Darwinists?

The Bible believers I know all became Bible believers AFTER their born again experience.

IOW, who wasn't a Darwinist first??

IOW, what Baby Boomer didn't argue with the "grown-ups" about Evolution ?


how can that possibly be hard to believe??

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 06:18 AM
I doubt that.

Your answer is evasive, though. Can you, or can you not, answer those questions?

RoyRoy, I am not going to jump your hoops on your demand.

besides, how could you tell if somebody didn't just google the replies?, or wiki them , after they go to the trouble of filling out your application?

JonF
08-17-2014, 06:25 AM
?
really?

why?

Is it your experience that people are born creationists, or born Darwinists?

The Bible believers I know all became Bible believers AFTER their born again experience.
Apparently you don't know many Bible believers. Many were raised that way from childhood, and there's a significant number of parents home-schooling their children to prevent them from learning about evolution.


IOW, who wasn't a Darwinist first??
Most people are don't cares or don't knows.


IOW, what Baby Boomer didn't argue with the "grown-ups" about Evolution ?
I'm a boomer and I didn't. I don't know of any who did.


how can that possibly be hard to believe??
What's the antecedent of "that"? Assuming it's your claimed knowledge, I have seen a very large sample of creationists who choose to post on message boards and claim to have extensive knowledge of the theory of evolution and every single one of them has revealed him/herself to be staggeringly ignorant of the ToE. Given that the obvious tentative conclusion is that you are just another ignoramus claiming knowledge you don't have.

I'm open to new evidence, but your response to Roy implies (somewhat weakly) that my inference is correct.

Go ahead, strut your stuff.

Roy
08-17-2014, 06:40 AM
Roy, I am not going to jump your hoops on your demand.No problem. But if you actually knew as much about evolution as you claim, you'd have been able to answer at least one or two of them immediately - as several of the Nat Sci denizens were able to do when these questions were originally posed to JM. That you've twice chosen to avoid answering them is very strong evidence that you don't know as much about evolution as the 'Darwinists' here.


besides, how could you tell if somebody didn't just google the replies?, or wiki them , after they go to the trouble of filling out your application?That's what John Martin tried. It was very obvious that he was clueless about evolution after he managed to get them all wrong despite Googling for answers.

Roy

Jorge
08-17-2014, 06:52 AM
Support that accusation or retract it.

Still waiting on your evidence for your claim ...................... :popcorn:



On the pre-crash TWeb, those questions were among those submitted following your request for questions that people would like to ask YECs. You stated that you could answer them easily enough, given time to do some research, but didn't see any point in doing so. Are you now saying that you don't know enough about evolution to be able to find the answers?

Roy

First of all, that wasn't what I stated in the pre-crash TWeb.
It's very fiendish of you to assert something that you know cannot be verified.

The essence of what I stated (maybe using other words) is as I had written earlier:

What I have and continue to claim (because it's true) is that I understand enough about 'evolution', (real) science, philosophy, mathematics, history, etc. to know precisely what the score is in this debate.

In particular, I know enough to see right through the pack of lies, deceptions and other unethical, amoral, anti-science, anti-biblical God, anti-epistemological practices by Atheists/Humanists/Theistic Evolutionists/others. You know, people just like you and others here on TWeb.

Your attempt at baiting me to waste my time responding to a sophomoric
quiz won't fly today, Roy. Tomorrow doesn't look any better, either.

Jorge

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 07:05 AM
No problem. But if you actually knew as much about evolution as you claim, you'd have been able to answer at least one or two of them immediately - as several of the Nat Sci denizens were able to do when these questions were originally posed to JM. That you've twice chosen to avoid answering them is very strong evidence that you don't know as much about evolution as the 'Darwinists' here.

That's what John Martin tried. It was very obvious that he was clueless about evolution after he managed to get them all wrong despite Googling for answers.

Roy

OK that's actually a pretty fair test.
I've used Red Queen often as example in my favorite epigenetics/stress-related mutation rate topic

Roy
08-17-2014, 07:24 AM
Your pathological liar problem, on the other hand, remains about the same.Support that accusation or retract it.Still waiting on your evidence for your claim ...................... :popcorn:Since that is neither support nor retraction, I have reported your post as a violation of the TWeb account terms of use.

Roy

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 08:01 AM
Apparently you don't know many Bible believers. Many were raised that way from childhood, and there's a significant number of parents home-schooling their children to prevent them from learning about evolution.


Most people are don't cares or don't knows.


I'm a boomer and I didn't. I don't know of any who did.


What's the antecedent of "that"? Assuming it's your claimed knowledge, I have seen a very large sample of creationists who choose to post on message boards and claim to have extensive knowledge of the theory of evolution and every single one of them has revealed him/herself to be staggeringly ignorant of the ToE. Given that the obvious tentative conclusion is that you are just another ignoramus claiming knowledge you don't have.

I'm open to new evidence, but your response to Roy implies (somewhat weakly) that my inference is correct.

Go ahead, strut your stuff.what is difference, violate terms of use, calling someone "liar" outright
...or using many words to say same thing.

Roy
08-17-2014, 08:17 AM
what is difference, violate terms of use, calling someone "liar" outright
...or using many words to say same thing.I think... substantiation vs lack of substantiation.

Also, Jon was recounting his personal experience, not accusing you. I too have seen many creationists claim expertise in evolutionary biology that they do not possess - John Martin being a particularly good example. Hence the handy list of questions to sort the gold from the slag. It's very effective.

Roy

P.S. Hint: red squirrels

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 08:31 AM
I think... substantiation vs lack of substantiation.

Also, Jon was recounting his personal experience, not accusing you. I too have seen many creationists claim expertise in evolutionary biology that they do not possess - John Martin being a particularly good example. Hence the handy list of questions to sort the gold from the slag. It's very effective.

Roy

P.S. Hint: red squirrels
I believe you believe that.

Juvenal
08-17-2014, 09:14 AM
are you projecting?

speaking of moving the goal posts, is there going to be an eventual time limit for the 'fishapod' crawling out of the water, or are you going to add another 20 more million years each time you find tetrapods that existed before your fishapods.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/

oh, well, whats a million years in light of billions to work with, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real time.


Hello jordaner,

I still have fond memories of your sock puppet avatars.

This objection doesn't make much sense. One can claim a recently discovered fossil is the oldest found so far, but one can't claim that it's the oldest that will ever be discovered. Neither does the emergence of a new species miraculously make the old one go away. That's like saying because America was founded by the English, there shouldn't be an England anymore. Which, by the way, is what you'd have read, if you'd read the article at your link:


The age of the newfound tracks suggest that "these transitional fish continued to exist alongside the tetrapods for quite some period of time," said Per Ahlberg, a paleontologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, who led the new research.

It's not so strange for one type of animal to live alongside its evolutionary successors, Ahlberg noted. Several feathered dinosaurs, for example, "continued to exist alongside the birds for millions of years."

Per Ahlberg used to post on Internet Infidels, an amazing board that gathered experts in a wide variety of specialties in its science forums. What's interesting about this is that your second link is to an article by some of his colleagues at Uppsala:


and then there was the Nested Hierarchy goal post

well it happened,

"gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

The evidence for nested hierarchy from retroviruses isn't just that two creatures had similar retroviruses inserted into their genomes, but that the same retroviruses were inserted in the same place. That's what shows the insertion was inherited.

It looks like you read this much of the abstract:


Two larger gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans. The PtG sequences were most similar to two baboon ERVs and a macaque sequence but neither to other chimpanzee ERVs nor to any human gammaretrovirus-like ERVs.

And missed the "most similar" modifier, but stopped before you read the next sentence:


The pattern was consistent with cross-species transfer via predation.

You didn't read the paper itself. If you'd read the paper, you'd have found they were searching for retroviral insertions that have occurred since the Homo-Pan speciation split.


The proviral long terminal repeats (LTRs) are identical at the integration moment (50). We analyzed recent pro- virus integrations with less than 2% LTR difference. With a typical value of 0.2% substitutions per million years (34), this LTR difference served as an approximation to 5 million years and the Homo-Pan sp. split. In this paper, we refer to these proviruses as “recent,” knowing that postintegrational mutations can accumulate at different rates depending on the genetic environment (25, 33, 60).

And, more, you'd have read that these weren't the same retroviruses, let alone in the same locations.


However, an exception from the otherwise robust PtG groups is the Papio anubis (clone AC091754) provirus, which groups inconsistently in the different analyses (see Fig. S1 to S3 in the supplemental material). This may theoretically be caused by convergent evolution, or recombination, within the two PtG groups and AC091754. The gammaretrovirus- like PtG1 group is distinct from the ICTV-defined gamma-retroviruses (including MLV and BaEV), despite sequence similarity to another baboon ERV. There are thus distinct gammaretrovirus-like baboon ERVs as well (see below)


already posted this BTW, here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2991-Great-New-AronRa-video-Evolution-is-a-fact&p=86112&viewfull=1#post86112)

and like The Borg, Talk Origins adjusted and now have a nice new bush instead of Darwin's Tree and the cladistic tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution/evolutionvines.jpg
1684

ok, that's ok, but where is the goal post now?

That's not a replacement bush, it's a bush in a new field. The diagram is clearly labeled "Bacteria." More, as a PRATT, it has its own TalkOrigins response (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html):


Horizontal gene transfer does not invalidate phylogenetics. Horizontal gene transfer is not a major factor affecting modern life, including all macroscopic life: "Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms" (Kurland et al. 2003, 9658; see also Daubin et al. 2003). And it is still possible to compute phylogenies while taking horizontal gene transfer into account (Kim and Salisbury 2001).


SO before you attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, better first remove the beam from your own eyes.

That's the kind of advice that takes better if one can see the presenter has followed it first.


well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.

Well, here you go. I've now demonstrated I know more about the "science" you know than you do. It's a red letter day for your calendar, I guess.


ok, ....my "stance"?

why its the same as yours,
....almost

I believe "evolution" is occurring , I think you believe evolution is occurring.

we're just haggling over how many "trunks" of trees, and the shape of the trunks.

That's not quite it. On this side, we're also vying to preserve the truths we've uncovered from misrepresentation.

As ever, Jesse

JonF
08-17-2014, 09:17 AM
what is difference, violate terms of use, calling someone "liar" outright
...or using many words to say same thing.
I am reporting on a statistical inference. Note my readiness to accept your claim should you provide some evidence for it. But until then the statistical inference is all I've got.

klaus54
08-17-2014, 09:17 AM
Of course macroevolution is possible -- and has even been observed both in nature and in laboratories.

Macroevolution is defined as being evolutionary change at or above the species level. This means that speciation ( the splitting of a single lineage into two or more genetically independent ones) is by definition a form of macroevolution. And even your major YEC organizations and spokespersons admit that speciation takes place -- some even recognize that this is macroevolution.

Yep. No problem for me. I was asking JR to clarify hisher position.

K54

klaus54
08-17-2014, 09:33 AM
Still waiting on your evidence for your claim ...................... :popcorn:...
Jorge

If you now claim you don't know all about evolution, then what qualifies you to argue so vehemently against it?

Surely you're not burning a strawman?

K54

klaus54
08-17-2014, 09:37 AM
what is difference, violate terms of use, calling someone "liar" outright
...or using many words to say same thing.

You are totally confusing me.

You said there was no boundary between micro and macro, but since then you've been blustering about the problems with macro.

If macro CAN occur, then why DIDN'T it?

If it DIDN'T, then explain why. Is it for scientific reasons or "historical" reasons?

If it's for scientific reasons, then why did you answer that there's no boundary??

K54

Omniskeptical
08-17-2014, 05:50 PM
If you now claim you don't know all about evolution, then what qualifies you to argue so vehemently against it?

Surely you're not burning a strawman?

K54And that is the biggest part of his dishonesty. What thou herefore, o Jorge?

jordanriver
08-17-2014, 06:47 PM
Hello jordaner,

I still have fond memories of your sock puppet avatars.

This objection doesn't make much sense. One can claim a recently discovered fossil is the oldest found so far, but one can't claim that it's the oldest that will ever be discovered. Neither does the emergence of a new species miraculously make the old one go away. That's like saying because America was founded by the English, there shouldn't be an England anymore. Which, by the way, is what you'd have read, if you'd read the article at your link:


The age of the newfound tracks suggest that "these transitional fish continued to exist alongside the tetrapods for quite some period of time," said Per Ahlberg, a paleontologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, who led the new research.

It's not so strange for one type of animal to live alongside its evolutionary successors, Ahlberg noted. Several feathered dinosaurs, for example, "continued to exist alongside the birds for millions of years."

Per Ahlberg used to post on Internet Infidels, an amazing board that gathered experts in a wide variety of specialties in its science forums. What's interesting about this is that your second link is to an article by some of his colleagues at Uppsala:



The evidence for nested hierarchy from retroviruses isn't just that two creatures had similar retroviruses inserted into their genomes, but that the same retroviruses were inserted in the same place. That's what shows the insertion was inherited.

It looks like you read this much of the abstract:


Two larger gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans. The PtG sequences were most similar to two baboon ERVs and a macaque sequence but neither to other chimpanzee ERVs nor to any human gammaretrovirus-like ERVs.

And missed the "most similar" modifier, but stopped before you read the next sentence:


The pattern was consistent with cross-species transfer via predation.

You didn't read the paper itself. If you'd read the paper, you'd have found they were searching for retroviral insertions that have occurred since the Homo-Pan speciation split.


The proviral long terminal repeats (LTRs) are identical at the integration moment (50). We analyzed recent pro- virus integrations with less than 2% LTR difference. With a typical value of 0.2% substitutions per million years (34), this LTR difference served as an approximation to 5 million years and the Homo-Pan sp. split. In this paper, we refer to these proviruses as “recent,” knowing that postintegrational mutations can accumulate at different rates depending on the genetic environment (25, 33, 60).

And, more, you'd have read that these weren't the same retroviruses, let alone in the same locations.


However, an exception from the otherwise robust PtG groups is the Papio anubis (clone AC091754) provirus, which groups inconsistently in the different analyses (see Fig. S1 to S3 in the supplemental material). This may theoretically be caused by convergent evolution, or recombination, within the two PtG groups and AC091754. The gammaretrovirus- like PtG1 group is distinct from the ICTV-defined gamma-retroviruses (including MLV and BaEV), despite sequence similarity to another baboon ERV. There are thus distinct gammaretrovirus-like baboon ERVs as well (see below)



That's not a replacement bush, it's a bush in a new field. The diagram is clearly labeled "Bacteria." More, as a PRATT, it has its own TalkOrigins response (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html):


Horizontal gene transfer does not invalidate phylogenetics. Horizontal gene transfer is not a major factor affecting modern life, including all macroscopic life: "Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms" (Kurland et al. 2003, 9658; see also Daubin et al. 2003). And it is still possible to compute phylogenies while taking horizontal gene transfer into account (Kim and Salisbury 2001).



That's the kind of advice that takes better if one can see the presenter has followed it first.



Well, here you go. I've now demonstrated I know more about the "science" you know than you do. It's a red letter day for your calendar, I guess.

As ever, Jesse

not at all Jesse. When I said its been a long time since a met a Darwinist who knew more than me I was referring to you of course.
and Roy :smile:

ok, Look, those ERVs can move, so location is not everything. They can be "cut-and-pasted" from their original location. And it stands to reason, IMHO, that if there is an I.D., then they might POSSIBLY have that mechanism as a STATEGY to prevent extinction.


try to address the rest later.

oh, those sockpuppets were to let people know I was already a poster , but you seemed to be the only to figure it out.

I had a political name , and my politics changed so I had get rid of it.

jordanriver
08-18-2014, 01:14 AM
That's not a replacement bush, it's a bush in a new field. The diagram is clearly labeled "Bacteria." More, as a PRATT, it has its own TalkOrigins response (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html):


Horizontal gene transfer does not invalidate phylogenetics. Horizontal gene transfer is not a major factor affecting modern life, including all macroscopic life: "Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms" (Kurland et al. 2003, 9658; see also Daubin et al. 2003). And it is still possible to compute phylogenies while taking horizontal gene transfer into account (Kim and Salisbury 2001).

As ever, Jesseok "PRATT"

just to be sure, are we on the same page.

exactly WHAT POINT is it that you believe I was trying to make here.
The talk origins "response" does not seem to be a response to any point I was trying to make.

klaus54
08-18-2014, 06:46 AM
ok "PRATT"

just to be sure, are we on the same page.

exactly WHAT POINT is it that you believe I was trying to make here.
The talk origins "response" does not seem to be a response to any point I was trying to make.

That the "designer" has to stick retro-viral gene sequences into DNA and move them around when necessary to keep a species from going extinct?

Sounds like a poor man working on a "fixer-upper" rather than a meticulous architect.

The designer (she/he/it) must have created reverse transcriptase to make ERVs possible. But RT allows some bad things to occur, no?

K54

Jorge
08-18-2014, 10:29 AM
If you now claim you don't know all about evolution, then what qualifies you to argue so vehemently against it?

Surely you're not burning a strawman?

K54

NEWSFLASH for Santa-Bozo Klaus: NO ONE knows "all about Evolution" for the
simple fact that a great deal of it is made up as the Evo-Faithful go along.

Stated differently, if you think that you know "all" there is to know about Evolution
then just wait until the sun rises tomorrow and you'll certainly be lagging behind.

I have repeatedly stated that I know E-N-O-U-G-H about Evolution to
enable me to detect the lies, deceptions and other trickery of the
Evo-Faithful. Now, which syllable of that don't you understand?

You're just a bundle of never-ending intellectual dishonesty, aren't you.

Maybe your comeback to this post will be: "Gee, Jorge, where's your sense of humor?" :no:

Jorge

phank
08-18-2014, 11:59 AM
E-N-O-U-G-H[/B] about Evolution to
enable me to detect the lies, deceptions and other trickery of the
Evo-Faithful. Now, which [I]syllable of that don't you understand?

You've made yourself clear for years, and your knowledge is well understood by just about everyone.

klaus54
08-18-2014, 03:21 PM
NEWSFLASH for Santa-Bozo Klaus: NO ONE knows "all about Evolution" for the
simple fact that a great deal of it is made up as the Evo-Faithful go along.

Stated differently, if you think that you know "all" there is to know about Evolution
then just wait until the sun rises tomorrow and you'll certainly be lagging behind.

I have repeatedly stated that I know E-N-O-U-G-H about Evolution to
enable me to detect the lies, deceptions and other trickery of the
Evo-Faithful. Now, which syllable of that don't you understand?

You're just a bundle of never-ending intellectual dishonesty, aren't you.

Maybe your comeback to this post will be: "Gee, Jorge, where's your sense of humor?" :no:

Jorge

E-N-O-U-G-H apparently isn't else you would produce more cogent criticism.

I know E-N-O-U-G-H about science and theology to ken that your Genesis interpretation (oops! "reading") doesn't jive with science nor with understanding of the ANE culture.

You sure you're not a comedian? If not, you should consider stand-up as a vocation.

K54

jordanriver
08-18-2014, 03:58 PM
That the "designer" has to stick retro-viral gene sequences into DNA and move them around when necessary to keep a species from going extinct?

Sounds like a poor man working on a "fixer-upper" rather than a meticulous architect.

The designer (she/he/it) must have created reverse transcriptase to make ERVs possible. But RT allows some bad things to occur, no?

K54
No. It fixes itself.
But that wasn't the point.

That was not point of 3 examples I cited.

klaus54
08-18-2014, 05:24 PM
No. It fixes itself.
But that wasn't the point.

That was not point of 3 examples I cited.

How does "it fix itself", and what WAS your point?

Why use viral genes?

I believe that RT can cause all kinds of difficulties.

Question: Do you believe in Grand Design in the sense that nature was designed to "fix itself", or creation of baramins occurred 6-10 thousand years ago with organism given the ability to "fix themselves"?

K54

P.S. You already admitted you believe there's no barrier to prevent micro from becoming macro. so you've already answered the OP.

Now I need to figure out what you mean by "Darwinism" and why you oppose it (e.g., why you used scare quotes around "science" a few pages ago.)

jordanriver
08-20-2014, 06:28 AM
.... and what WAS your point?

I was waiting for lao Tzu (Jesse) to reply but I guess he's not returning.

The point, since my Post 104 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88685&viewfull=1#post88685) was a SPECIFIC RESPONSE-reply to your claim in your Post 99 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88233&viewfull=1#post88233) where you stated:

posted by klaus54 in Post 99
"..."Moving the goalposts" makes kicking field goals much easier, dunnit?"

I don't understand how you missed the POINT of my reply when I clearly opened by saying


posted by ME in post 104
"...speaking of moving the goal posts..."

should I have boldened 'goal posts' and put it in Caps , like GOAL POSTS ?

and underlined it too, like GOAL POSTS ?


goal posts, i.e. FALSIFIABILITY., i.e., is it TESTABLE

Juvenal
08-20-2014, 07:34 AM
not at all Jesse. When I said its been a long time since a met a Darwinist who knew more than me I was referring to you of course.
and Roy :smile:

Ha! There's a number of posters on this board who aren't better than me at biology ... they're much better than me. Roy is one of them, and rwatts, and sylas who used to write for Talkorigins, and well, some actual working biologists, too. I don't know what Dr. Roy did his doctoring in, but I suspect that like me, it wasn't in biology. I'm a mathematician.

Crevo debates are a specialty that attracts outsiders, though, as there's very little call for it inside biology itself. Outside of PRATTs, it mostly involves correcting the latest misinformation by looking up the topics in the literature put out by real biologists, who, naturally enough, spend their time creating that literature instead of defending it from attacks by non-specialists on religious bulletin boards.

I've never run into a creationist claim that wasn't already answered in the literature. It could happen, but until it does, it can't add anything to the actual science.


ok, Look, those ERVs can move, so location is not everything. They can be "cut-and-pasted" from their original location. And it stands to reason, IMHO, that if there is an I.D., then they might POSSIBLY have that mechanism as a STATEGY to prevent extinction.

They can move, and more, they can be duplicated with each of the copies undergoing its own mutations. In the paper you cited, they used those measures to determine how recently the ERV had been inserted so as to narrow down their analysis to ERVs that had been inserted after the Pan-Homo split.

But it should be noted that even when they move, they generally travel with their nearest neighbors, allowing us to trace their journeys. The fusion region in human chromosome 2 is a celebrated example. In that case, two whole chromosomes that are still present in the Pan line joined together, bringing everybody along for the ride while preserving their sequences.


try to address the rest later.

Take your time. No hurry at all. I'm too busy to follow fast-moving threads anymore. Sorry if my absence made you think I'd abandoned the conversation.


oh, those sockpuppets were to let people know I was already a poster , but you seemed to be the only to figure it out.

I had a political name , and my politics changed so I had get rid of it.

They were also highly creative and original. Did you make them yourself?

As ever, Jesse

jordanriver
08-20-2014, 08:56 AM
They can move, and more, they can be duplicated with each of the copies undergoing its own mutations. In the paper you cited, they used those measures to determine how recently the ERV had been inserted so as to narrow down their analysis to ERVs that had been inserted after the Pan-Homo split.

But it should be noted that even when they move, they generally travel with their nearest neighbors, allowing us to trace their journeys. The fusion region in human chromosome 2 is a celebrated example. In that case, two whole chromosomes that are still present in the Pan line joined together, bringing everybody along for the ride while preserving their sequences.



They were also highly creative and original. Did you make them yourself?

As ever, Jesse

yeah, but my favorite was a scan from a Batman comic, of "socko" a temporary replacement for "scarface" the dummy.
(yeah, I am an odd person, I admit it)

ok, those ERVs.

Ok, ERVs are retrotransposons and there are examples of them not only moving, but moving to specific "preferential" locations, like in these rice genomes:


"SMARTs preferentially insert into/near genes and can affect gene structure

The availability of a large collection of full-length cDNA sequences [38] and extensive rice genome annotation resources [39], [40] allowed us to determine the integration sites of the small elements relative to genes. A total of 262 SMARTs in Nipponbare including 33 complete copies and seven solo LTRs were examined. Of these sequences, 74 (28.2%) were in introns of annotated rice genes. Three and eight were located in exons and untranslated regions (UTRs), respectively. In addition, 53 (20.2%) were found within one kb upstream or downstream of annotated genes. 28.6% of the sequences were harbored in single-copy regions with no annotated genes. The remaining sequences were located in either transposons or multiple-copy regions (Table 3). Taken together, about 53% of the SMARTs in Nipponbare were located within or near genes. This suggests that SMARTs preferentially integrate, or are retained in genic regions, especially introns.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032010

ALSO, this paper informs me that vertical transfer isn't the only mode, but also HORIZONTAL transfer:

"Given that retrotransposons are thought to evolve more rapidly than genes [36], we cannot rule out the possibility of horizontal transfer of the small retrotransposons within the grass family. Horizontal transfer has been reported for both Mutator-like elements (MULEs) and LTR retrotransposons within the rice genus and other genera in the grass family [46], [47]. In this study, no FRetro129 homologs were found in genomes outside the grass species. It is possible, however, that ancient homologs of FRetro129 were either lost or are highly diverged in these genomes."

so, for all we know, the "matching+location" human and chimp ERVs could be the result of HGT and since we have such a close match with the chimps, then the insertion would target the same gene.
>>> just sayin'

here is some more citation I have of moving transposons and HGT

MAMMALIAN GENOMICS Anatoly Ruvinsky, Jennifer A. Marshall Graves ISBN 0851999107
p 283
Although a large percentage of mammalian endogenous retroviral sequences are degenerate copies, a number of these sequences are intact and capabl of transcription and transposition. This host-independent transposition reaction involves the excision, or replication, and reinsertion into a different location within a host genome through a 'cut and paste' or 'copy and paste' mechanism. The aforementioned mechanisms are responsible for the transposition of a distinct region of target DNA into a non-homologous site (Berg and Howe, 1989; Craig, 2002). The mechanism of transposition of TEs has been discussed in great detail in other sources (see Berg and Howe, 1989).
There are numerous examples of endogenous retroviral sequence expression in the human (Lower et al., 1996; Andersson et al., 2002), mouse (Thomas et al., 1984) and marsupial (our unpublished data and O'Neil et al., 1998) genomes. It is important to note that although some retroviruses may be expressed, they themselves may not be the target of the enzymes which they encode and could be working in trans to mobilize other retroelements (Coffin et al., 1997). Sequence analysis of these active retroviruses has shown that they have diverged from their modern-day exogenous counterparts. Endogenous and exogenous retroviruses are obviously subject to different selective pressures. The selective forces influencing the activity of exogenous retroviruses are complex and do not necessarily depend on the fitness of the host. Endogenous retroviruses, on the other hand, have been subject to selective pressures that have largely rendered them compatible with the host (Coffin et al., 1997).
Fig. 11.1 shows transmission of TEs superimposed on a species phylogeny. Verticle transmission, horizontal transfer and stochastic loss can create a complicated phylogenetic distribution (bottom) for TEs within a given species complex.

AND they can cause cancer, another citation how they cut-and-paste and change location


STRESS-INDUCED MUTAGENESIS David Mittelman ISBN 9781461462798

p 63-64
A high-throughput method for cancer gene discovery in the mouse has involved retroviral insertional mutagenesis (RIM) (Kool and Berns 2009). Retroviruses can induce cancer as part of their normal viral cycles. For example, proviral DNA can integrate into the mouse genome to deregulate expression of an oncogene, or inactivate a tumor suppressor gene. The retroviral integration sites in tumors thus mark the location of candidate cancer genes.
Transposon-based insertional mutagenesis (TIM) provides an alternative high-throughput approach for cancer gene discovery (Ivics and Izsvak 2010). Most transposable elements, excluding retrotransposons, use a "cut-and-paste" mechanism where the transposable element-encoded transposase catalyzes the excision of the transposon from an original location in the genome and promotes reintegration elsewhere. There are two types of transposons: autonomous transposons encode and active transposase and are thus capable of transposing on their own, while nonautonomous transposons lack a functional transposase, but retain the cis-acting DNA sequences that are necessary for transposition. Nonautonomous transposons are therefore active only when the transposase is supplied in trans. This, in principle, allows one to control the issue in which TIM occurs by limiting where the transposase is expressed. Therefore, TIM can be used to selectively model many types of cancer (Copeland and Jenkins 2010).

well, I had to type all that out, so I might as well cite the thing

Roy
08-20-2014, 09:54 AM
I don't know what Dr. Roy did his doctoring in, but I suspect that like me, it wasn't in biology. I'm a mathematician.It wasn't. I'm a mathemagician too, and I doctored in software engineering.

But you flatter me too much. Sylas, Steve, Roland, GH, (formerly) bandicoot and someone called Jesse frequently put me to shame regarding biology.

Roy

klaus54
08-20-2014, 02:08 PM
I was waiting for lao Tzu (Jesse) to reply but I guess he's not returning.

The point, since my Post 104 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88685&viewfull=1#post88685) was a SPECIFIC RESPONSE-reply to your claim in your Post 99 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88233&viewfull=1#post88233) where you stated:


I don't understand how you missed the POINT of my reply when I clearly opened by saying



should I have boldened 'goal posts' and put it in Caps , like GOAL POSTS ?

and underlined it too, like GOAL POSTS ?


goal posts, i.e. FALSIFIABILITY., i.e., is it TESTABLE

The point of this thread was to poll creationists as to where or what is the micro/macro boundary. You admitted there was NONE.

You answered to the question, so I have no idea why you started blathering about ERVs.

If you want to continue to nitpick a particular evolutionary topic, please start your own thread.

K54

K54

jordanriver
08-20-2014, 03:14 PM
The point of this thread was to poll creationists as to where or what is the micro/macro boundary. You admitted there was NONE.

You answered to the question, so I have no idea why you started blathering about ERVs.

If you want to continue to nitpick a particular evolutionary topic, please start your own thread.

K54

K54

Because in YOUR POST 99 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88233&viewfull=1#post88233) YOU accused the other side of "moving the goalposts"

I understand the point of your thread and I answered for you.

But then YOU complained about goal posts being moved, so I had no choice but to remind you , that your side also has a history of moving the goal posts.




,,,,well, ok, that was hyperbole, its not like I was actually forced to do anything ...more like compelled.

jordanriver
08-20-2014, 03:15 PM
I think i'll leave your thread alone, then.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 03:31 PM
Because in YOUR POST 99 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3085-Micro-vis-à-vis-Macro-Evolution&p=88233&viewfull=1#post88233) YOU accused the other side of "moving the goalposts"

I understand the point of your thread and I answered for you.

But then YOU complained about goal posts being moved, so I had no choice but to remind you , that your side also has a history of moving the goal posts.




,,,,well, ok, that was hyperbole, its not like I was actually forced to do anything ...more like compelled.

I made the goalpost remark since had already stated you saw no micro/macro boundary then proceeded to nitpick evolutionary theory but not after you used scare quotes around "Darwinists" and "science".

You are just one confusing person.

But you were only one of two that addressed the OP, and for that I'm thankful.

(The other person who answered gave the undefinable notion of "baramin".)

K54