Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[pgp_protector]

 

[Gawron]

I like AV, as internet people go, but even I wonder why he would resurrect a thread where the most recent prior post was on June 11th, 2002.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like AV, as internet people go, but even I wonder why he would resurrect a thread where the most recent prior post was on June 11th, 2002.

Because a good point should never cater to a time stamp.

 

[Nostromo]

Do you reckon we should give Rhodesia independence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you reckon we should give Rhodesia independence?

Are we holding Rhodesia as a vassal or something?

 

[Nostromo]

No, I just thought I'd bring up another point that had been settled decades ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I just thought I'd bring up another point that had been settled decades ago.

Does this sound settled to you?

Most of us agree that micro-evolution occurs in nature. Many of us agree further, that speciation by reproductive isolation occurs in nature.

Some hold the view that macroevolution (common descent, or the evolution of novel features) is impossible. For those, I would like this to be a thread devoted to discussing why macroevolution is impossible, or more to the point: what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution.

If it doesn't, I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

If it does, I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because a good point should never cater to a time stamp.

So why don't you raise a good point, and we'll come back to it in a few years?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Does this sound settled to you?

If it doesn't, I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

If it does, I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

Actually, Darwin settled that one himself and it's been verified in the literature. Speciation has been observed, so clearly microevolution does not limit speciation. Reproductive isolation, as the OP mentions, does in fact lead to speciation.

 

[Greg1234]

1. since when are animals created machinery?

Machinery, no. Created yes.

2. Since when can machinery adapt?

Long time

3. What mechanism do you think machines use to adapt?

What has been endowed to them.

manmade machines and lifeforms are not the same thing.

They only employ a similar principle in adaptation.

Your entire arguement is now moot.
Have a good day.

Sure

 

[Greg1234]

Ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation.

Changing speed settings is the proposed mechanism for fan to race car
Reproduction with chance and necessity is the proposed mechanism for microbe to man

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Changing speed settings is the proposed mechanism for fan to race car
Reproduction with chance and necessity is the proposed mechanism for microbe to man

Dude, you don't get it. You can't compare inert objects with living things! Evolution does not occur in a single organism, much like it does not occur in a ceiling fan. For example, I cannot "evolve", in the sense of theory of evolution. My genes are set. Like a ceiling fan, I cannot suddenly change into something else in my lifetime (which is what you apparently think evolution says). The changes occur in sperm and egg in the next generation. Evolution would be occurring for me when I donate my sperm (which are a haploid mix of my genetic material) to my partner's egg (which is a haploid mix of her genetic material). Thus, the offspring is not a carbon copy of either of us, but rather is a 2 chromosome composite of my 2 chromosomes and my partner's 2 chromosomes. Variation. In the next generation. That is what is needed for evolution.

That's why a ceiling fan cannot evolve, because it bears no offspring.

Evolution occurs in populations, not in individuals. It happens as genetic information changes in germ cells (sperm and egg) and is passed on to the next generation. That's where we start to see changes - in the subsequent generations.

 

[SaraCurious]

Changing speed settings is the proposed mechanism for fan to race car
Reproduction with chance and necessity is the proposed mechanism for microbe to man

You seem very hooked on "chance", why is that?

Evolution is actually the opposite of chance, its, I guess a good way to explain it to someone like you, "Intelligent" adaption by "Nature", but this would confuse you so forget that I said that, its simple not chance" as you would use it in "I won the lottery" chance, ok?


You also, I think, do not know what Evolution is, so would it be okay for you to explain to me what you think evolution is, just so I wont make a preemptive assumption before explaining it to you?

Sara




Added:

(Borrowed from Lion Hearted Man's post)

Evolution occurs in populations, not in individuals. It happens as genetic information changes in germ cells (sperm and egg) and is passed on to the next generation. That's where we start to see changes - in the subsequent generations.

This is a basic thing you need to learn Greg.

 

[SaraCurious]

I've been reading through this thread and it seems that not one single individual that refuse to accept the evidence of biological evolution actually know what it is.

This is my understanding of what these people think evolution is: A Horse mates with a Bird and get a Pegasus.

​

= EVOLUTION
​

This, to me, is what they show to "think" evolution is, they talk about single individuals "changing" seeming not to understand that its the population changing, just like today, every single child born is different from its parents, seemingly they don't know what they are talking about.

So, my own personal conclusion, the people having no idea of what evolution is, Deny It, whiles people knowing what it actually is, Accept It. In school we got plenty of kids who accept the fact of evolution, but don't know what it is (yet) as they either haven't learnt enough about it or not very keen on caring about it as they are busy with other things like drinking or going to church rather then learning.

I am worried about the future.
Sara

 

[AV1611VET]

So why don't you raise a good point, and we'll come back to it in a few years?

Thanks anyway, but then you would be the necrobumper.

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, eh?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've been reading through this thread and it seems that not one single individual that refuse to accept the evidence of biological evolution actually know what it is.

That's par for the course in the antievolution camps -- as long as it threatens their egos, they don't care what it is; they're just against it.

I am worried about the future.
Sara

You and me both, sister.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thanks anyway, but then you would be the necrobumper.

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, eh?)

I would be -- If I thought you were capable of raising a point worthy of serious discussion now, let alone in a few years.

Those who know you consider you a joke, AV -- and nobody's interested in old jokes.

 

[Greg1234]

You seem very hooked on "chance", why is that?

Evolution is actually the opposite of chance, its, I guess a good way to explain it to someone like you, "Intelligent" adaption by "Nature", but this would confuse you so forget that I said that, its simple not chance" as you would use it in "I won the lottery" chance, ok?

Mother Nature and Father Time are not intelligent, nor am I their offspring. And the intelligent mechanism I'm speaking about is far more complex than that proposed in Darwinism..

[You also, I think, do not know what Evolution is, so would it be okay for you to explain to me what you think evolution is, just so I wont make a preemptive assumption before explaining it to you?

Sara

There are variations. There is Darwinism, Evolutionism and Adaptation.

Added:

(Borrowed from Lion Hearted Man's post)
This is a basic thing you need to learn Greg.

Everything is taken into consideration when testing is done on the fan: the rate of oscillation, the distance from the floor, the amount of screws holding it in place should it have screws, power source, number of switches, manufacture date, the number of blades, etc.

The same thing for organisms: reproduction, population, drift, Mendelian genetics, chance and necessity, etc.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

For the last time, Greg, THIS is what evolution states:

1) For evolution to occur, organisms must be able to reproduce with variation.
2) For evolution to occur, there is natural selection that acts upon the variants that inevitably favors certain variants over others.

You really don't get the first part, so you really can't understand evolution until you.

Let's take humans as an example. Each human has 1 set of chromosomes from mom and 1 set from dad. Once they get those chromosomes, evolution is done for that individual. In their lifetime, they are limited by their genome. When it comes time to make the next generation via sexual reproduction, germ cells are made. Germ cells shuffle around the total genome and make 1 set of chromosomes that is a collage of the 2 sets of chromosomes the person has. Thus, each germ cell potentially has tons of variation from another based on the way they shuffle the each chromosome the person got from their parents. Thus, variation in the germ cells.

Then the germ cells meet - egg and sperm. So now the child is a combination of genes from the parent. It is different than the parents. Now the child continues in the same cycle - he or she is shackled to their genes, and shuffles them around (generating variation) for the next generation.

Natural selection then acts upon the inherent variation that occurs in a population of individuals.

Can't you see why now that machines are a terrible analogy for evolution? The concept of evolution requires reproduction with variation, the process I have given a lengthy discussion of. Evolution does not occur in single individuals, but in populations across generations. This is what is so hard for people to understand about evolution, and is the key to understanding it.

So Greg, do you take issue with this? Do you still think machinery is a good analogy for evolution?

 

[Targ]

LHM and Sara, I would not bother trying to persuade Greg why his insane idea about a fan evolving into a car is wrong. You would not believe how many times he has posted these sorts of analogies here, only to be repeatedly refuted by multiple people on many many occasions. Every time he is refuted, he comes back for more. In fact, Greg's posts almost always consist of only two things: a) the statement that bacteria don't evolve into men and b) that fans / scrapyard etc can't turn into a racing car / Boeing 747. I can guarantee you that if you address his argument in detail here, he will just ignore it and carry on using the same arguments on the next thread that comes up.