Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[Michael]

There is nothing to argue because there is no such thing as 'EU/PC theory'!

Creationist to supporter of evolutionary theory: "There is nothing to argue because there is no such thing as evolutionary theory! Given that you disagree with this statement, please present papers which you and your companions clearly explain it, and don't forget to mention that there is disagreement among various authors."

Oy Vey. Ya, real deep "knowledge" you have there Selfsim. Give me a break! You're actually much worse than most creationists I've met too because most of them don't go out of their way to *intentionally misrepresent* the theory even if they're clueless about it, nor do they spend all their time bashing on *individuals* while hiding behind anonymous handles. Sheesh.

Fine, I'll go see if I've already started such a thread here and if not I'll start one, and start with the three books and authors that I mentioned since you've apparently never read a single one of them based on the fact that you completely dodged my direct question about whether or not you've actually read them for yourself.

Have you read Peratt's book, Alfven's book or Birkeland's book yet, yes or no? If yes, which one(s)?

 

[Michael]

FYI, Tom Bridgman erroneously claimed that Birkeland supported three different solar models, and he utterly botched the solar wind diagram of Birkeland's solar model, demonstrating conclusively that he's a typical EU/PC hater without a clue, just like you.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright

Bzzt. Totally wrong! Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flowed out of the sun toward "space", or what we'd call the heliosphere today. Bridgman didn't even get the basics right of Birkeland's model! EU/PC haters are all alike, they're all clueless.

FYI, if anyone's interested in Birkeland's *real* opinions and his statements about his *one* cathode solar model, a NY Times reporter did a decent job explaining that one cathode solar model about 100 years ago. The Times reporter even got the particle flow and direction flow right, unlike clueless Bridgman. You can find the article here and read it for free in their "Timesmachine".

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE; Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could be a sign of what I'd call good taste, could be a sign of what I'd call bad taste. It all depends what else is on the pizza.

I'll tell you mine will never have: mushrooms or onions.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread moved from Physical and Life Sciences to Creation and Evolution!

OFF!

 

[SkyWriting]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

Evolution moves exactly as God planned it. That's why science is having such a hard time explaining it as the design is exponentially more intricate than man can imagine.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'll tell you mine will never have: mushrooms or onions.

I only leave off anchovies, but add them myself on occasion from a jar in the fridge. Anything else goes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

I researched the "role of population in evolution" and found no consistent answer.

The results of a computer simulation study of the role of population size in population genetical models of molecular evolution are presented. If the mutation rate and strength of selection are held fixed and the population size increased, the eight models examined fall into three domains based on their rates of substitution. In the Ohta domain, the rate of substitution decreases with increasing population size; in the Kimura domain, the rate of substitution remains close to the mutation rate; in the Darwin domain, the rate of substitution increases without bound. In the Kimura and Darwin domains, the rate of substitution is much less sensitive to the population size than suggested by two-allele theories. Remarkably, the overdominance model converges to the neutral model with increasing N. The variation at a neutral locus linked to a selected locus is found to be insensitive to the population size for certain models of selection. A selected locus can actually cause the rate of substitution of deleterious alleles at a linked locus to increase with increasing population size. These unexpected results illustrate that intuition based on two-allele theory is often misleading.
The role of population size in molecular evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[xianghua]

Evolution moves exactly as God planned it. That's why science is having such a hard time explaining it as the design is exponentially more intricate than man can imagine.

if you believe in theistic evolution you may interested in my signature link.

 

[Ophiolite]

I researched the "role of population in evolution" and found no consistent answer.

And yet, and yet, there is no disagreement that populations evolve and speciation occurs. Funny you didn't acknowledge that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It all depends what else is on the pizza.

We had a youth pastor that said there are three kinds of dreams. The dreams that come from God, the dreams that come from Satan and the dreams that come from eating to much pizza.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'll tell you mine will never have: mushrooms or onions.

My first son had no problem with mushrooms on his pizza. Now my second son has a problem eating mushrooms. My first son got a better grade in calculus 2. I wonder if there is a connection between eating mushrooms and getting higher grades.

 

[David_M]

Your post is a massive oversimplification of the evidence for common descent. The similarities are not just a surface similarity but a deep similarity of form, function, genetics, molecular biology, supported by fossil evidence. Hence, I think you have inappropriately trivialised the argument, and then attacked the triviality of your paraphrase.

I don't know what the obsession about self-replicating cars is in this forum, and I don't see how it contributes to debate. So, I'm ignoring that part of your post.

Its not just the pattern of the similarities, its also the patterns of differences. That should not be overlooked.

 

[Jcreigns]

Ive do e much research on evolution theory and to be trurhful its mostly just crap. Its a fairy tale for adults. If you want the complete truth do your own research from both sides of the coin. Study it for a few months atleast

 

[Jimmy D]

Ive do e much research on evolution theory and to be trurhful its mostly just crap. Its a fairy tale for adults. If you want the complete truth do your own research from both sides of the coin. Study it for a few months atleast

Translation : I watched some creationist youtube videos and read some nonsense on the Answers in genesis website.

Are there any particular lines of evidence that came up short during your "months" of research?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I researched the "role of population in evolution" and found no consistent answer.

The results of a computer simulation study of the role of population size in population genetical models of molecular evolution are presented. If the mutation rate and strength of selection are held fixed and the population size increased, the eight models examined fall into three domains based on their rates of substitution. In the Ohta domain, the rate of substitution decreases with increasing population size; in the Kimura domain, the rate of substitution remains close to the mutation rate; in the Darwin domain, the rate of substitution increases without bound. In the Kimura and Darwin domains, the rate of substitution is much less sensitive to the population size than suggested by two-allele theories. Remarkably, the overdominance model converges to the neutral model with increasing N. The variation at a neutral locus linked to a selected locus is found to be insensitive to the population size for certain models of selection. A selected locus can actually cause the rate of substitution of deleterious alleles at a linked locus to increase with increasing population size. These unexpected results illustrate that intuition based on two-allele theory is often misleading.
The role of population size in molecular evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

Interesting that you go for a very particular interpretation of the question. Can you answer the question in the light of the standard theory of evolution by which new species are created?

 

[SkyWriting]

I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

Populations get cut off from the "main group" and
eventually stop mating the the main group for
whatever reasons. This forms a new species.

The might smell different, look different, or
part their hair different. If they stop breeding
with the main group, then they are a new species.

 

[Waggles]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.
Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?
I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

I am definitely not a YEC because the Bible describes aspects of the Earth
as being ancient.
YEC is like a pre-tibulation rapture a product of faulty Bible study.

But in respect to understanding evolution there is nothing to understand
or to debate, because as we all know the theory of evolution is complete
rubbish and delusional.
The product of the imaginations of men and women who deny the truth
because they refuse to submit to the wonderful truth of Jesus as Creator
of the universe, the Earth and everything.

The day you can empirically Prove evolution to be true I will buy you a
packet of Tim Tams.

 

[pitabread]

But in respect to understanding evolution there is nothing to understand
or to debate, because as we all know the theory of evolution is complete
rubbish and delusional.

Which nobody who actually understood the ToE would ever say, thus proving that creationists tend to lack an understanding in the first place.

The product of the imaginations of men and women who deny the truth
because they refuse to submit to the wonderful truth of Jesus as Creator
of the universe, the Earth and everything.

Which is of a course a giant load of horse doody as evidenced by the number of Christians that also accept the ToE.

In a mere two statements you've described basically everything wrong with modern creationism and the fact that creationists have no idea what they are even arguing against.

 

[Waggles]

To learn just how wrong you lot are about your
fairytales of evolution when Jesus returns in power and glory
is leaving it all too late.
Charles Darwin won't be able to save you.

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC is like a pre-tibulation rapture a product of faulty Bible study.

Ouch!