Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There are no fixed points. Do you think all dog breeds were produced over a single generation? And that’s just changes within a single species.

Again, you are simply exhibiting a lack of knowledge of even the basics of the process.

There must must be clear boundaries for what defines a species otherwise the word ‘species’ is meaningless.

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to deny evolution but don’t even know the definition of species? I think my grandson would even know that.

Go Google it…

I’ll wait here while you do that.

 

[Noose001]

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to deny evolution but don’t even know the definition of species? I think my grandson would even know that.

Go Google it…

I’ll wait here while you do that.

Species
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens .

Q. Was there a moment when parents bore offspring that they were unable to interbreed with or exchange genetic materials with?
A simple yes or no would do.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to deny evolution but don’t even know the definition of species? I think my grandson would even know that.

Go Google it…

I’ll wait here while you do that.

Species
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens .

Q. Was there a moment when parents bore offspring that they were unable to interbreed with or exchange genetic materials with?
A simple yes or no would do.

Look buddy, there is a point when I am going to stop spoon feeding you information. My guess is that you might have hit on Wiki when you Googled ‘species’. And within that comprehensive explanation of the term is all the information you need. It might serve you well to delve a touch deeper that basic definitions and read what the term actually means in a practical sense.

So the simple answer is ‘no’ and the wiki will explain why. It’s the explanation you need, not the answer. And I’m putting the spoon away. Do some research before you ask any more questions.

 

[rossum]

Natural Selection results in a loss of Biological Information.

All one needs is a smattering of Bio-Science to know and understand that…

Sorry to jump in late. 58 replies on this thread this morning!

You are missing something. Natural selection is only part of evolution. Evolution includes mutations as well as natural selection.

Mutations introduce new biological information. Some of it useful, some of it neutral and some of it harmful. That new information is being introduced into populations over time.

Natural selection sorts through the information. It weeds out the harmful information (deleterious mutations) which indeed reduces the variation in information. It ignores the neutral information and it increases the proportion of the useful information (beneficial mutations) in the population.

Evolution is a double process: mutations increase the amount of information while selection decreases it by weeding out deleterious mutations. Your source made an error by ignoring half of the process. Mutations introduce new information into genomes. That is where you need to look for the source of the changes that lead to macroevolution, not to natural selection.

 

[Noose001]

So the simple answer is ‘no’

You came here to demonstrate evolution and you will do it, otherwise the end is nigh.

Consider the following hypothetical lineal generations from a ‘common ancestor’

1…2…3…4…5…6…7…20…21…22…48…49…50…

If the 22nd generation can not interbreed with the 7th generation, then it is said to be a different species, but if the 21st generation is able to interbreed with the 7th, then the parents at gen’ 21 bore a different species from themselves even though they are able to interbreed with their offspring. We just have to draw a line.

What do you think?

 

[Noose001]

Evolution is a double process: mutations increase the amount of information while selection decreases it by weeding out deleterious mutations.

Our ancestor lost the tail and an organism lost its hind legs on its way to become a whale, how did mutations increase information in these cases?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So the simple answer is ‘no’

You came here to demonstrate evolution and you will do it, otherwise the end is nigh.

Consider the following hypothetical lineal generations from a ‘common ancestor’

1…2…3…4…5…6…7…20…21…22…48…49…50…

If the 22nd generation can not interbreed with the 7th generation, then it is said to be a different species, but if the 21st generation is able to interbreed with the 7th, then the parents at gen’ 21 bore a different species from themselves even though they are able to interbreed with their offspring. We just have to draw a line.

What do you think?

I think that you don’t know enough about the matter to ask sensible questions. Why do you think that changes leading to speciation actually happen? Do you think it happens just on one geneological line? Do you think that speciation happens if all members of a species interbreed?

 

[Noose001]

I think that you don’t know enough about the matter to ask sensible questions. Why do you think that changes leading to speciation actually happen? Do you think it happens just on one geneological line? Do you think that speciation happens if all members of a species interbreed?

Evolution is nothing, how much does one need to understand, for them to ask sensible questions about nothing?
I just gave a hypothetical scale, i didn’t say anything about geological line. Evolution proposes that i’m in the nth generation from our common ancestor and i’m a different species from our common ancestor. So?!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think that you don’t know enough about the matter to ask sensible questions. Why do you think that changes leading to speciation actually happen? Do you think it happens just on one geneological line? Do you think that speciation happens if all members of a species interbreed?

Evolution is nothing, how much does one need to understand, for them to ask sensible questions about nothing?

Not much. And yet you still don’t ask sensible questions. You ask questions that indicate you haven’t done even the most basic of research. You didn’t even read down a page or two of a wiki that would explain everything that you’d need to know about speciation and would make you realise that subsequent questions you asked were nonsensical.

And I sincerely hope that when you said you mentioned nothing about ‘a geological line’ that you didn’t mean it as read. But I have to say I’m not sure…

 

[Noose001]

Not much. And yet you still don’t ask sensible questions. You ask questions that indicate you haven’t done even the most basic of research. You didn’t even read down a page or two of a wiki that would explain everything that you’d need to know about speciation and would make you realise that subsequent questions you asked were nonsensical.

I’ll admit it, i hate reading but make no mistake, i’m very ‘fit for the environment’, maybe it is the evolution, who knows. As per my fitness scale, you have no robust arguments on Hereditary science and Genetics.

But you seem to rely so much on ‘Time’ so let’s discuss time.

You said the Biosphere as it is doesn’t allow you to conclude that the universe is young.

So what is time according to you?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not much. And yet you still don’t ask sensible questions. You ask questions that indicate you haven’t done even the most basic of research. You didn’t even read down a page or two of a wiki that would explain everything that you’d need to know about speciation and would make you realise that subsequent questions you asked were nonsensical.

I’ll admit it, i hate reading…

Not a great admission from someone who needs to do a lot of it. No…correction. Just a little bit. But still doesn’t.

And are we now down to the nitty gritty. You’re a yec (one can tell simply by that fact that you ask ‘what is time to you?’). This might be fun so let’s play.

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

 

[Noose001]

And are we now down to the nitty gritty. You’re a yec (one can tell simply by that fact that you ask ‘what is time to you?’). This might be fun so let’s play.

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

No i’m not a yec, though i don’t have any issues with youngness or oldness but the reasoning behind it but more specifically the definition or description of time.

Your definition is vague, i don’t know why.

We can ‘measure rate of change’ in momentum or velocity or employees in a company but we are not dealing with time even though all rates have the aspect of time in them.
Time is an aspect in all rates so time defines rates and not the other way round.

Try again.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And are we now down to the nitty gritty. You’re a yec (one can tell simply by that fact that you ask ‘what is time to you?’). This might be fun so let’s play.

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

No i’m not a yec, though i don’t have any issues with youngness or oldness but the reasoning behind it but more specifically the definition or description of time.

Your definition is vague, i don’t know why.

We can ‘measure rate of change’ in momentum or velocity or employees in a company but we are not dealing with time even though all rates have the aspect of time in them.
Time is an aspect in all rates so time defines rates and not the other way round.

Try again.

How does this work? I give an answer I know is correct but which you think is vague (but you don’t know why) so you want me to give you a different one?

Ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Noose001]

so you want me to give you a different one?

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

I mean, you were wrong.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Measuring acceleration is not the same thing as time.

 

[rossum]

Our ancestor lost the tail and an organism lost its hind legs on its way to become a whale, how did mutations increase information in these cases?

Evolution may increase or decrease information, whatever is more advantageous in the given environment. There is no requirement that evolution always increases information.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

so you want me to give you a different one?

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

I mean, you were wrong.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.

Indeed It is. Why did you say I was wrong? I didn’t say that.

 

[Noose001]

Indeed It is. Why did you say I was wrong? I didn’t say that.

Acceleration is not time.
Measuring acceleration doesn’t give you time either.

I’m just giving you one of the many measures of change of rates because your definition for time is; measure of change of rate.

 

[Noose001]

Evolution may increase or decrease information, whatever is more advantageous in the given environment. There is no requirement that evolution always increases information.

Evolution is a double process: mutations increase the amount of information while selection decreases it by weeding out deleterious mutations.

So this statement is wrong after all.

If our ancestor slowly gained a tail through a series of random mutations (additions), how was the loss like? was it in the same manner as she gained but in the reverse order?

 

[rossum]

So this statement is wrong after all.

No, both my statements were correct.

If our ancestor slowly gained a tail through a series of random mutations (additions), how was the loss like? was it in the same manner as she gained but in the reverse order?

Highly unlikely. Our genes have various on and off switches, for example HOX genes. In our ancestors the tail genes were switched on in one place and off in all other places; monkeys only have a tail in one place, not in many places on their bodies. Only a single mutation would have been needed, to change the switch in that one place from on to off. With the switch off then no tail would grow.

The cells in your fingers have all the genes to make eyes, but those genes are switched off in your fingers. I suggest you read Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” which explains this very well.

 

[Noose001]

Highly unlikely. Our genes have various on and off switches, for example HOX genes. In our ancestors the tail genes were switched on in one place and off in all other places; monkeys only have a tail in one place, not in many places on their bodies. Only a single mutation would have been needed, to change the switch in that one place from on to off. With the switch off then no tail would grow.

Very interesting. With the switch off mechanism, could parents bare offspring of a different species? I mean, like the parents have the tail and the offspring doesn’t so the offspring is a different species.