Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#301  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2014 2:59 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:The patterns we obtain using comparative genetics combined with our understanding of the mechanism of inheritance cements this beyond all reasonable doubt.


This is one of the areas where the atheists go wrong.


Poppycock. What part of "paying attention to the real world data" do you not understand?

questioner121 wrote:They've been lead down this path where they think the science leads to a conclusion without stopping to think what the science actually proves.


Again, poppycock. Oh wait, the scientists who performed the relevant experiments have included presentation of the implications of the results in their papers. Or did you not bother to ponder this elementary notion?

I think the actual scientists who wrote the papers can be regarded as more reliable on this matter, than some individual on the Internet propagandising for mythology.

questioner121 wrote:Here genetics is being used to infer relationships via reproduction between living organisms


Er, no. This is bullshit. Here is what actually happens:

[1] Organisms are observed reproducing, Those organisms are therefore considered to be part of the same species.

[2] Genetic data is collected from those organisms (and their offspring), allowing us to determine such details as inheritance mechanisms. A process that started back in the 19th century with Gregor Mendel.

[3] Given that we have hard evidence for inheritance in this manner, and zero evidence for other processes (such as magic conjuring tricks by an invisible magic man), it is natural to conclude that closely related species acquired their shared anatomical features from a common ancestor.

[4] At this point, we look for ways of testing this hypothesis. One such test being to observe speciation taking place. Which has been done. Documentation of speciation events is voluminous.

[5] At this point, we also ask whether or not the patterns of inheritance we see are consistent with the common ancestry hypothesis. This test has also been performed, not least by Douglas Theobald, who compared different ancestry models with the genetic data, and established in his paper on the subject, that the universal common ancestor model is a whopping 102,860 times more probable than other ancestry models.

In other words, the data says common ancestry is valid. Game over.

questioner121 wrote:when there is a huge body of evidence which proves beyond a doubt that certain living organisms simply cannot reproduce with one another.


So what? Those organisms can still reproduce with other organisms belonging to the relevant population. Or did you miss the part where reproductive incompatibility was the means by which species boundaries are established?

questioner121 wrote:This fact is then somehow incorporated into their assumption


Ahem, no "assumptions" involved. See above.

questioner121 wrote:as if it was just normal or expected


Bullshit again. What part of "scientists have been engaging in active research to determine the underlying basis for species differences" do you not understand?

questioner121 wrote:and then the atheist/evolutionist


Yawn, yawn, yawn ... drop the "evolutionist" dishonesty.

questioner121 wrote:thinks no more of it


Bullshit. What part of "let's look at the scientific papers" did you miss every time it's been thrown at you?

questioner121 wrote:instead they just shout louder and louder pointing to the genetic evidence.


Oh wait, it's precisely because the genetic evidence supports the relevant postulates, and has been demonstrated to do so time and again, that we keep pointing mythology fetishists at it. Your fake and dishonest attempt to characterise this as ""here's some made up shit" of the sort we keep seeing from supernaturalists, is precisely that - fake and dishonest.

questioner121 wrote:So let's take a closer look at how genetic evidence actually proves that populations are able to reproduce with one another to produce viable offspring.


Oh this is going to be good.

questioner121 wrote:The evidence of today clearly shows that speciation exists however it also clearly shows that there are limits.


WHAT "limits"? Citations?

questioner121 wrote:If you look at ring species it can be clearly observed that certain populations of the same species (or similar living organims) are unable to reproduce with one another.


Oh wait, a ring species consists of several well defined populations, with reproductive incompatibility only occurring between the populations at the ends of the chain. Take such a species with, say, five populations, A, B, C, D and E. What happens in a ring species is this:

[1] Individuals of population A can reproduce with individuals of population B, and vice versa;

[2] Individuals of population B can reproduce with individuals of population C, and vice versa;

[3] Individuals of population C can reproduce with individuals of population D, and vice versa;

[4] Individuals of population D can reproduce with individuals of population E, and vice versa;

BUT:

[5] Individuals of population E cannot reproduce with individuals of population A, and vice versa.

This on its own should be telling you, that speciation, as I've already expounded earlier, isn't a binary on/off affair. Reproductive incompatibilities between two populations don't appear overnight throughout either population, instead, they appear in one or a few individuals, and slowly propagate through the relevant population over multiple generations.

What's happened in the case of ring species, is that small differences, insufficient to result in reproductive incompatibility, have emerged in adjacent populations (between which there is still some gene flow), but the cumulative differences across the entire span of populations, has resulted in reproductive incompatibility emerging between individuals in the end populations of the chain, so that individuals in those populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

But then, since populations with limited gene flow between them will diverge anyway, this is entirely natural. Indeed, what would be noteworthy, would be to observe two populations of this sort that didn't exhibit genetic divergence.

questioner121 wrote:Not sure if species is the the right term to use in this case since according to the definition of species the populations are different species as they are unable to reproduce with one another.


Well as I said above, this simply demonstrated that speciation isn't a simple binary-state affair.

questioner121 wrote:Let's put that to one side and look at the genetics. If you look at the genetics then no doubt you will find that the distal populations of the ring species are "related". BUT they are not related via the reproduction capabilities of two "side by side" populations.


This is bullshit plain and simple. Oh wait, all the populations in question inherited their genetic stock from mutually reproducing ancestors, acquiring differences once the populations separated. Enough laboratory experiments verifying this process have been performed.

questioner121 wrote:I understand how this observation is used by evolutionists


Yawn, yawn, yawn. Drop the "evolutionist" dishonesty, because it IS dishonest, and I explained to you why it's dishonest in a reply to one of your posts over a year ago.

questioner121 wrote:to prove that ToE is true and explain the different species we see in the world today.


Oh wait, the evidence tells us this. Which is why mythology fetishists don't like it, and invent all manner of duplicitous apologetic fabrications to try and summarily dismiss said evidence.

questioner121 wrote:The point is you can't use genetics to confirm that the distal populations of a ring species are able to reproduce with one another because if you observe them in the real world they obviously don't.


Look up fertillin genes. One of several classes of genes inplicated in speciation events, and for good reason.

questioner121 wrote:Why they don't is another topic of research.


Oh wait, a lot of that research has already been performed. Hence the papers on genes implicated in speciation events, the fertillin genes being amongst them.

questioner121 wrote:So to clarify, genetic similarity does not necessarily mean related via reproduction.


Ahem, inheritance from an ancestor is the one mechanism for this enjoying a large body of evidential support. Magic conjuring tricks by invisible magic men, on the other hand, have zero evidence supporting them.

questioner121 wrote:Now for ring species it can be observed that the distal populations are related via intermediate populations breeding with another therefore yes they are related via reproduction through an indirect path. However there is a limit. There is a clear boundary of the ring species which can be observed. There is a "beginning" and an "end" for which there are no known populations of living organisms which precede or continue the ring species.


I point you to those laboratory experiments on speciation again ...

questioner121 wrote:Here is where evolutionist


Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn ...

questioner121 wrote:begin to fantasize


Bullshit.

questioner121 wrote:and start filling it with assumptions.


Bullshit.

questioner121 wrote:They use the observations they see in ring species, link that with genetics and hey presto, genetics becomes this huge body of evidence supporting common ancestry.


Oh wait, the integration of ring species observations with genetics is just one small part of a vast body of evidence. See above,

questioner121 wrote:Because genetics is observable and real they use this to give a huge amount of credibility to their assumptions


Drop the "assumptions" bullshit, because it IS bullshit. See above.

questioner121 wrote:in order to make it look like fact even though it is not proven by observation in the real world.


Bullshit. How many of those 3,000+ scientific papers shall I bring here?

questioner121 wrote:If common ancestry were true then in the real world we would see many long chains of ring species where the intermediate populations were able to reproduce with one another. We simply don't see this.


Er, no. We only expect to see ring species when the relevant separation conditions apply to the populations. In populations with large-scale continuous gene flow, of which there are many, we don't expect to see this.

Do us all a favour, go and pick up some actual biology textbooks, and learn what the science actually postulates, instead of getting your misinformation from liars for doctrine like Harun Yahya.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#302  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 5:08 pm

[1] Individuals of population A can reproduce with individuals of population B, and vice versa;

[2] Individuals of population B can reproduce with individuals of population C, and vice versa;

[3] Individuals of population C can reproduce with individuals of population D, and vice versa;

[4] Individuals of population D can reproduce with individuals of population E, and vice versa;


If population B and/or C gets killed, there are two species (A and E).


[questioner121 wrote:
The evidence of today clearly shows that speciation exists however it also clearly shows that there are limits.



WHAT "limits"? Citations?


That a species can't breed with another species. But that is because genetic changes accumulating into the DNA and not weeded out lead to changes in the genetic make-up of a species. The ring species are a demonstration of this process (population A and population E are genetically more distinct). All the species did was getting off-spring at different (non-mixing) locations. Genetic changes at the location of A were different from those at the location of population E. And after a (long) while, the populations can't interbreed anymore.

So, this doesn't show that there is a limit beyond which populations can evolve, but that this limit isn't there, that populations evolve, and in time are genetically so different from other populations that they have become different species.

If a whole population dies, the species is extinct. The other populations continue to exist. And their DNA keeps changing (remember the insulin gene explanation you were given?).

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#303  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2014 5:17 pm

Whilst I appreciate your excellent exposition Bert, I was hoping questioner could provide an answer without you doing his homework for him. :mrgreen:
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#304  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 5:34 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Er, no. This is bullshit. Here is what actually happens:

[1] Organisms are observed reproducing, Those organisms are therefore considered to be part of the same species.

[2] Genetic data is collected from those organisms (and their offspring), allowing us to determine such details as inheritance mechanisms. A process that started back in the 19th century with Gregor Mendel.

[3] Given that we have hard evidence for inheritance in this manner, and zero evidence for other processes (such as magic conjuring tricks by an invisible magic man), it is natural to conclude that closely related species acquired their shared anatomical features from a common ancestor.

[4] At this point, we look for ways of testing this hypothesis. One such test being to observe speciation taking place. Which has been done. Documentation of speciation events is voluminous.

[5] At this point, we also ask whether or not the patterns of inheritance we see are consistent with the common ancestry hypothesis. This test has also been performed, not least by Douglas Theobald, who compared different ancestry models with the genetic data, and established in his paper on the subject, that the universal common ancestor model is a whopping 102,860 times more probable than other ancestry models.

In other words, the data says common ancestry is valid. Game over.


Please define "inheritance mechanisms". I'm assuming this means that it was observed that offspring inherit certain traits of their parents, thereby the by my understanding the mechanism is via reproduction.

All the observations used to determine the hypothesis of common ancestry is based from closely related species. The problem is that there is no observations of distant species or any evidence of speciation leading to very different species to confirm how far common ancestry can go. To assume that common ancestry went all way down to bacteria from humans or from birds to theropods is a huge assumption which is unproven. To say that common ancestry is proven by observing speciation and/or simply by examining DNA is absolutely ludicrous. By citing numerous studies on what we observe today does not in anyway confirm common ancestry beyond the level of which the observations were made for.

If we take a look at the definition of species. It's changed many times due to new observations being made. This should tell you that the definition of species is limited to the observations we have made. To go beyond that is purely assumption. What I'm saying is that common ancestry should be treated the same. It's confirmed upto the point where we have the observations of populations being able reproduce with one another, either directly or via a successive chain.

An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#305  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 5:39 pm

questioner121 wrote:
An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.


Blasphemer!!

Dog would have designed life much more efficiently.

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#306  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Sorry Cali. But look, he's probably under fear of eternal damnation (by his deity who loves him) if he departs from the party line in his favorite book. In such a situation with so much at stake, how hard can you expect a person to think voluntarily to risk that? No, facts and solid lines of reasoning should be in his face so the only thing he can do (and does) is to avert his eyes/close them. We'll just wait for the moment when he drops his guard for a second, and when he opens his eyes for a second he has seen the evidence.

Bert
Last edited by bert on Feb 23, 2014 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#307  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 5:49 pm

bert wrote:

That a species can't breed with another species. But that is because genetic changes accumulating into the DNA and not weeded out lead to changes in the genetic make-up of a species. The ring species are a demonstration of this process (population A and population E are genetically more distinct). All the species did was getting off-spring at different (non-mixing) locations. Genetic changes at the location of A were different from those at the location of population E. And after a (long) while, the populations can't interbreed anymore.

So, this doesn't show that there is a limit beyond which populations can evolve, but that this limit isn't there, that populations evolve, and in time are genetically so different from other populations that they have become different species.

If a whole population dies, the species is extinct. The other populations continue to exist. And their DNA keeps changing (remember the insulin gene explanation you were given?).

Bert



Here you have made an assertion that genetic difference leads to populations becoming so different that they become different species. Could you please clarify how much genetic diifference would lead to a population becoming a new species?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#308  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 5:54 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Here you have made an assertion that genetic difference leads to populations becoming so different that they become different species.

^This is not an assertion. It is a fact.

questioner121 wrote:
Could you please clarify how much genetic diifference would lead to a population becoming a new species?


An interesting question. At last. :thumbup:

I eagerly await the biologists to answer.

:popcorn:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#309  Postby halucigenia » Feb 23, 2014 5:58 pm

questioner121 wrote:Here you have made an assertion that genetic difference leads to populations becoming so different that they become different species. Could you please clarify how much genetic diifference would lead to a population becoming a new species?
Merely sufficient for the two populations to no longer interbreed.
Once the populations no longer interbreed, then the differences are bound to keep on building up, unless you can come up with a mechanism to prevent this from happening.
What's so difficult with that as an explanation? :ask:
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#310  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 6:04 pm

How far do our houses have to be apart for you to live in a different city than I am?

I only say that the possibility to successfully mate depends on the genetics: members of population A brought in contact with members of population E do not get off-spring after mating) because with less genetic difference (e.g. population A and B) there is off-spring.
My capability of expressing the quantity of difference is of no relevance. I can say that my neighbour is taller than I am without knowing the exact length of each of us. But apparently you think it is an important question, so please highlight why this is so. And why nature would pay any attention to that quantity at all. IMO, all nature does is play the game: if you mate and there's no off-spring, you lose.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#311  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:11 pm

It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#312  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:17 pm

hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#313  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 6:25 pm

questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".


Why don't you research it?

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#314  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:26 pm

halucigenia wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Here you have made an assertion that genetic difference leads to populations becoming so different that they become different species. Could you please clarify how much genetic diifference would lead to a population becoming a new species?
Merely sufficient for the two populations to no longer interbreed.
Once the populations no longer interbreed, then the differences are bound to keep on building up, unless you can come up with a mechanism to prevent this from happening.
What's so difficult with that as an explanation? :ask:


"Merely sufficient for the two populations to no longer interbreed." - sounds a bit like how they came up with the definition of species.

I'd just like to remind you that definition of evolution does not imply that differences/traits keep on building up. It's simply a change in allele frequency. This means a population may also lose traits.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#315  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:27 pm

campermon wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".


Why don't you research it?

:thumbup:



Because evolution is bullshit? :ask:
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#316  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:29 pm

questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".


How long have you got? You can learn all about it at many good colleges and universities, and even at quite a few rubbish ones.

Put simply, there are some areas in which mutations will produce incompatibility in only a few generations. It's only incompatibility denying gene flow that matters. It isn't remotely about absolute numbers. It's a fairly simple point, and should require no elaboration.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#317  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:30 pm

questioner121 wrote:Because evolution is bullshit? :ask:


Well since you've already accepted it, you're just admitting to accepting bullshit. Not that this is news to anybody here, given the bullshit you already accept.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#318  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:33 pm

campermon wrote:I eagerly await the biologists to answer.


;)
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#319  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 6:33 pm

questioner121 wrote:An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.


No, it doesn't.
Remember vitamin C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c ... re=related)? The designer would have put the faulty gene (with the chunk missing) in gorilla's, chimps and humans. Doesn't demonstrate much intelligence.

The ERVs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I) are the clincher. (Make sure you understand that video).

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#320  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 6:34 pm

hackenslash wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Because evolution is bullshit? :ask:


Well since you've already accepted it, you're just admitting to accepting bullshit. Not that this is news to anybody here, given the bullshit you already accept.


Certainly time for a beer!

:beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest