Macro-evolution with color!

[juvenissun]

For the purposes of hexadecimal colour coding, the letters are numbers.

Then why do I see letters AND numbers for colors?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I actually prefer to use examples closer to real world experimental results- adaptation with limits, like a ceiling fan for example.

In your analogy are your ceiling fans reproducing with variation?

I actually prefer to use examples closer to real world observations. . .such as real world observations in which macroevolution has already been observed and documented numerous times.

Reality > analogy




Lurker

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

It's colorful, but in the real world, evolutionists prefer charts and diagrams that show branch-offs, tees and splits.

If we were to expand this analogy in order to not only illustrate gradual change resulting in distinct forms but to also show how the multichromatic history of an original population changed over time then I don't see why that would be a problem (other than it isn't what the original post was trying to show). It would probably look something like this:

(source)

In other words, very specific places where one animal starts to become another.

Mmmmmmm no. "Population" is not synonymous with "individual". If you don't understand that evolution takes place on a population level then you don't understand evolution.





Lurker

 

[juvenissun]

are you saying two mutations cant occur from one generation to another? because they can.

May be they can. Not only two, I guess 10000 mutations could happen at the same time from one generation to another. But this does not say anything about my argument. Mutations are like numbers. They do not become letters. We may use letters to represent numbers, that would be the macroevolution. But it won't happen unless WE make it so. That is creation.

 

[juvenissun]

(source)


Lurker

This is a nice mental exercise. But that is all it is. It can never go far enough in reality. People are still TRYING to make new species on very low level life. It has never been succeeded.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

This is a nice mental exercise. But that is all it is. It can never go far enough in reality. People are still TRYING to make new species on very low level life. It has never been succeeded.

Except, of course, that it has. Here's a fairly easy-on-the-brain example:

(source)

We start with two species of Spartina cordgrass, one is a European cordgrass (Species A) the other is an American species of cordgrass (Species B). When they interbreed they produce a sterile hybrid cordgrass (Species C). Because Species C cannot produce seeds it is reduced to reproduction via vegetative propagation, a process in which “new” individual plants arise without seeds or spores from parent plants, and doesn’t spread very fast as a result. However, after a while there is a polyploidy event in which during reproduction the number of chromosomes is doubled inside a cell where basically the nucleus of a cell divides but the cell doesn’t. You can visualize this pretty easily by looking at a normal example of cell mitosis here, the orange thing in the middle is the cell nucleus where the cell’s chromosomes are stored which are basically the filing cabinets for DNA. Now imagine that middle part dividing and the rest of the cell remaining the same, basically what you’ve done is double the number of chromosomes. Ta-da, you now understand polyploidy.

In our hybrid cordgrass (Species C) the result is a new species that can now reproduce sexually (Species D), and that is better able to survive in its environment. As a result it spreads faster than either Species A, B, or C. At the same time it cannot reproduce with species C, seeing as the hybrid is sexually sterile, nor can it reproduce with species A or B due to the large difference in chromosomes.

 

[Greg1234]

Ta-da, you now understand polyploidy.

Except for the fact that polyploidy is not looked upon as a viable option to create the complexity of life today. In the case of the beneficial mutation assertion, delving deeper into the mechanisms at play we find that beneficial outcomes do not automatically surmount to the type of pattern which would be required to create complex structures. The only thing is on the surface, it looks nice and pretty. Just on the surface it looks nice and pretty. Its the same thing for the "beneficial upon beneficial mutation persisting indefinitely will create the increasing amount of complexity witnessed today". Merely superficial compared to the in depth study showing that loss of function mutations dominate adaptation and a gain-of-function mutation would be an attempt at balancing the mounting deficit being created by loss-of-function mutation.

So while Darwinists have cited beneficial mutations as the mechanism responsible for the creation of life today, what they have done is confined the proposed mechanism to a definition which outlines an inconsequential phenomena thus diminishing and ultimately casting out that explanation.

It's the same thing with speciation. Though it revolves around the definition of a mechanism which supposedly contributes to the complexity of life , by attributing it to a phenomenon like polyploidy, which does practically nothing in terms of adaptation-mutation-increase in complexity, speciation, which now means a change where practically nothing happens, can be relegated by definition. Like the fruit-fy speciation example which was attributed to a bacterial infection which hindered reproduction. Upon closer inquiry, speciation, where the mechanism is defined as being a bacterial infection, classifies the word.

 

[Greg1234]

If we were to expand this analogy in order to not only illustrate gradual change resulting in distinct forms but to also show how the multichromatic history of an original population changed over time then

Applied to real world testing this can merely attempt to delineate on adaptation, not microbe to man.

I don't see why that would be a problem (other than it isn't what the original post was trying to show). It would probably look something like this:

(source)

Unlike this drawing, all types of harmful mutations do not meet a dead end. Detrimental mutations far surpass any benefit from a mutation. It is dished to creationists that natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations, and what you are left with is a spick-and-span genome impervious to any degradation. But natural selection is unable to weed out what it cannot touch. Not all detrimental mutations are severely felt at the phenotypic level and what you have is an accumulation of deleterious effects. This is genomic version of "wear and tear". One example given was the case of the "princess and the peas" but another is the fact that you car doesn't just break down on the spot. If it does break down, it is a problem felt at a level which impairs normal functioning. You would then you bring it to the mechanic to amend it, but during the time when you have no problems with it, it is still degrading.

 

[Nostromo]

Then why do I see letters AND numbers for colors?

Because we don't have a single digit number for the numbers 10-15, so we use A-F. It's more convenient for numbers to be represented in a different way in computing.


#76e34f is the same as rgb(118,227,79).

Don't get caught up in the letters/numbers thing, that's more a limitation of the medium than the analogy itself.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Except for the fact that polyploidy is not looked upon as a viable option to create the complexity of life today.

Except, of course, for the fact that it is. We've actually encouraged polyploidy events to create new species of plants and it was a driving force in the evolution of most flowering plants and even some animals.

You know, your assertions would probably have more of an effect if they weren't nearly always completely wrong.

In the case of the beneficial mutation assertion, delving deeper into the mechanisms at play we find that beneficial outcomes do not automatically surmount to the type of pattern which would be required to create complex structures.

We've already observed beneficial mutations occurring, and we've already observed neutral mutations that are then co-opted into later beneficial mutations. And we've observed these mutations result in new traits which allow certain populations to out-reproduce populations without these novel traits. That is all the ToE requires.

Merely superficial compared to the in depth study showing that loss of function mutations dominate adaptation and a gain-of-function mutation would be an attempt at balancing the mounting deficit being created by loss-of-function mutation.

Curiously, the people who actually study this (you know, those pesky biologists and such) completely disagree. In fact, they not only postulate but have also documented this thing called natural selection which promotes the rare beneficial mutation and discourages harmful mutations.

Evolution is not simply adaptation; evolution is not simply selection - evolution is the process of adaptation and selection. Until you can understand the theory you will be unable to coherently criticize it.

So while Darwinists have cited beneficial mutations as the mechanism responsible for the creation of life today, what they have done is confined the proposed mechanism to a definition which outlines an inconsequential phenomena thus diminishing and ultimately casting out that explanation.

That would be complete baloney. Mutations shuffle nucleotide sequences, on a genetic level the only difference between one organism and another is the sequence of nucleotides in their dna. Proposing that the mechanism responsible for varying genomes is the thing we observe varying dna is hardly "inconsequential".

It's the same thing with speciation. Though it revolves around the definition of a mechanism which supposedly contributes to the complexity of life , by attributing it to a phenomenon like polyploidy, which does practically nothing in terms of adaptation-mutation-increase in complexity,

I suggest you re-read my post as you seem to think that polyploidy is not a form of mutation, being able to spread more rapidly is not a beneficial adaptation, and that doubling the chromosomes of an organism is not an increase in complexity. Needless to say, this isn't exactly an unstoppable steam-roller of logic you're driving.

speciation, which now means a change where practically nothing happens, can be relegated by definition.

If you don't like the meaning of a certain word then stop using it.




Lurker

 

[Delphiki]

Then why do I see letters AND numbers for colors?

Because most of humanity commonly uses a base 10 number system. Hexadecimal is base 16. Since we don't usually have 16 numeric digits at our disposal, we use roman lettering to represent the ones above 9.

base 10: 123456789 10 11 12 13 ....
hexadecimal: 123456789ABCDEF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C....

It's also convenient because you can count up to and beyond 255 with only 2 digit numbers.

DNA can actually be considered a base 4.

 

[juvenissun]

Because we don't have a single digit number for the numbers 10-15, so we use A-F. It's more convenient for numbers to be represented in a different way in computing.

Then why don't just use 10, 11,... 15?

 

[Merlin]

I agree

But this leads me to think you utterly missed the point.

no, i only show it's lacking.
it's excellent for explaining how we get different races

 

[Nostromo]

Then why don't just use 10, 11,... 15?

Basically, it's easier to convert between hexadecimal (base 16) numbers and the binary numbers that the computer uses internally.

Each character in hex (0,1,2...D,E,F) corresponds to exactly four binary digits (0000,0001,0010...1101,1110,1111), so it's easy to work out that 1115 means 0001 0001 0001 0101

If we used 0-15, how would I know if 1115 means 1,1,15 or 1,11,5 or 11,15, or 11,1,5 or 1,1,1,5? It's just simpler to understand and more compact as hexadecimal, but I can see why it doesn't make a lot of sense to people who don't work with software.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

no, i only show it's lacking.
it's excellent for explaining how we get different races

Think of each color as a species, there is nothing lacking.

 

[wensdee]

Creationists have been raised to believe that evolution is wrong so guess what? that's what they believe no matter what.

Why don't they check for themselves? because they are creationist and are warned against it, why? their con men leaders know if they do it will stop them being creationists and that means money out of their pockets.

 

[Merlin]

Think of each color as a species, there is nothing lacking.

ok,
show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?
what's the matter?
having trouble withthe inbetweens?

 

[wensdee]

ok,
show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?
what's the matter?
having trouble withthe inbetweens?

No it's you who is having trouble with inbetweens because your brain is not in gear, you're not thinking straight.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?

How exactly is that "something meaningful"? What's the significance of english and chinese in relation to evolution?




Lurker

 

[Merlin]

No it's you who is having trouble with inbetweens because your brain is not in gear, you're not thinking straight.

then do show me