The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[PsychoSarah]

The problem is that when you look at the likelihood of observing his data, that the test statistic is so high that it falls in the right hand tail of the sampling distribution (chi-squared). This is very unusual for testing stated proportions.

It is; pea plants, by some quirk of nature, couldn't be much more perfect for the kinds of experiments he was doing. Their genomes allow for very basic and rarely interrupted recessive versus dominant gene transfer observations. Almost all other life forms won't work so perfectly in that kind of experiment; which is why Mendel just so happened to notice a pattern when he was growing pea plants and not some other plant.

 

[createdtoworship]

It won't happen directly. You are treating it as single generations without realizing that evolution is extremely gradual. You could have 50 generations pass and the only difference in the population might be that those of the creature that live in the forest are speckled while those that live in the grassy plains are striped. Given another 50 generations and those populations, which due to proximity rarely interbred, might have different claw shapes. And so on and so on.

I think you are misunderstanding. Say for example only that there is a solid line between genra. there can be 50 generations between yes, but eventually one line is crossed and the other is crossed into. At this point even if it is still a gradual change, there is a different genus. Otherwise what you are saying is that monkey and man are the same exact species with just different types of body types. And this is obviously wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you are misunderstanding. Say for example only that there is a solid line between genra. there can be 50 generations between yes, but eventually one line is crossed and the other is crossed into. At this point even if it is still a gradual change, there is a different genus. Otherwise what you are saying is that monkey and man are the same exact species with just different types of body types. And this is obviously wrong.

Which is wrong. What you fail to understand is that this slow process causes those populations to split in their evolutionary path; multiple splits have to occur before a new genus comes into existence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

we only need one, but if you have a list, give it.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program this should give you all the information you want, with even an evolutionary tree picture.

 

[Sayre]

I don't think he faked it as much of his work has been often replicated. I did read that there were some statistical issues that might indicate a little fudging which were reported as far back as 1911 by Fisher.

Over all when considering that he published in a very obscure journal, obscure enough that his work was not discovered until after his death, I might doubt that it was a deliberate act but possibly one of omission or error if there was a problem

The best I can tell is that it is an interesting question with no real impact and the jury seems to be out on it.

Dizredux

I agree that it has no real impact other than to pique the curiosity of those gifted with numbers. I'm a fan of Fischer and his exact p values.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which is wrong. What you fail to understand is that this slow process causes those populations to split in their evolutionary path; multiple splits have to occur before a new genus comes into existence.

Which has NEVER been shown to happen. It's all word games and imagination. You have living examples right before your eyes with cats and dogs, that you constantly ignore. In a mere few generations we have breed them into multiple breeds, but sorry, they are all still Felis and Canis, every last one of them.

No new genus has ever been observed to come from a pre-existing genus, except in your imagination.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which has NEVER been shown to happen. It's all word games and imagination. You have living examples right before your eyes with cats and dogs, that you constantly ignore. In a mere few generations we have breed them into multiple breeds, but sorry, they are all still Felis and Canis, every last one of them.

No new genus has ever been observed to come from a pre-existing genus, except in your imagination.

Not in one human lifetime; what stops them from changing more, then? If they can change into different breeds as different as a Great Dane and a chihuahua, why not even further?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is; pea plants, by some quirk of nature, couldn't be much more perfect for the kinds of experiments he was doing. Their genomes allow for very basic and rarely interrupted recessive versus dominant gene transfer observations. Almost all other life forms won't work so perfectly in that kind of experiment; which is why Mendel just so happened to notice a pattern when he was growing pea plants and not some other plant.

You mean plant and animal mutation studies which turned out the exact opposite of what you are trying to tell us 50 years later?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation that plant and animal breeders have basically given up on? That mutation?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean plant and animal mutation studies which turned out the exact opposite of what you are trying to tell us 50 years later?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation that plant and animal breeders have basically given up on? That mutation?

You do realize they artificially induced mutations in homozygous lines, and that I never stated over time that a mutation couldn't break the pattern, right? I was just expressing the importance of plant biology in human history, I am well aware that Mendel's work is far from perfect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean plant and animal mutation studies which turned out the exact opposite of what you are trying to tell us 50 years later?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation that plant and animal breeders have basically given up on? That mutation?

Justa, we have gone over this article with you time and time again. Why do you keep bring it up? It does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Dizredux]

I agree that it has no real impact other than to pique the curiosity of those gifted with numbers. I'm a fan of Fischer and his exact p values.

Although I am not gifted with numbers, I also a fan of Fisher for the amazing things he did with statistics and genetics. Truly amazing.

Dizredux

 

[loveofourlord]

I believe the count for species of living animals to bottle neck a thus evolve into all the different species we have today are less than 7 thousand. If my memory serves me correctly, and there were I believe room for 6500 species on the arc. (all adolescent) as well as room for food, water, hay

Yeah...not even close to possible. Your still looking at hyper evolution on the scope thats never been seen before about 50 species a year over the last 6000 years thats asuming they all evolved today, but considering we have images of lions/tigers and other such animals shortly aftter the supposed events of the flood then it have to be even more insanly fast. Your guy's math just doesn't work. You complain about macro evolution then use super mega omega evolution. So all life can't evolve over time because not enough, but all cats can evolve from a couple of species in just a few hundred years.....yeah tell me why we should accept your guy's claims?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah...not even close to possible. Your still looking at hyper evolution on the scope thats never been seen before about 50 species a year over the last 6000 years thats asuming they all evolved today, but considering we have images of lions/tigers and other such animals shortly aftter the supposed events of the flood then it have to be even more insanly fast. Your guy's math just doesn't work. You complain about macro evolution then use super mega omega evolution. So all life can't evolve over time because not enough, but all cats can evolve from a couple of species in just a few hundred years.....yeah tell me why we should accept your guy's claims?

I call it evolution on steroids. Pure madness.

 

[loveofourlord]

no some of the others,

but what I am confused about was how we have apes and humans related but no transitions. After all they are different genus, so a transition would be nice to prove they at least evolved one from the other.

and yet you retreat to something totally off the subject, plant life.

shouldn't a basic human evolution have transition?

we have plenty of evidence, australopithecus, neanderthal, among many other species, and not just one fossil but multiple including some DNA from a couple like neanderthal.

 

[loveofourlord]

Didn't Mendel fake it?

Are you maybe thinking heckel? Which exagerated some images to try to make a point, though over did it and definetly went too far?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you maybe thinking heckel? Which exagerated some images to try to make a point, though over did it and definetly went too far?

The embryo guy? His methods were wrong, but despite that, after actually being able to observe embryos for ourselves, he wasn't all that far off.

 

[loveofourlord]

You mean plant and animal mutation studies which turned out the exact opposite of what you are trying to tell us 50 years later?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation that plant and animal breeders have basically given up on? That mutation?

those are artificially generated mutations through chemicals or radiation and such, and create mutations far greater tehn is normally done in populations also faster then can be weeded in or out by natural selection. It might be possible to create a random benefit from there, but also hampered by a dozen or so bad mutations. In a normal human as mentioned there is 50-60 or so mutations, this process would create hundreds or thousands of mutations.

 

[Sayre]

Are you maybe thinking heckel? Which exagerated some images to try to make a point, though over did it and definetly went too far?

No - definitely mendel - google mendel / fischer

 

[PsychoSarah]

those are artificially generated mutations through chemicals or radiation and such, and create mutations far greater tehn is normally done in populations also faster then can be weeded in or out by natural selection. It might be possible to create a random benefit from there, but also hampered by a dozen or so bad mutations. In a normal human as mentioned there is 50-60 or so mutations, this process would create hundreds or thousands of mutations.

Which is why it doesn't relate to natural selection type mutation; or disprove evolution for that matter.

 

[createdtoworship]

we have plenty of evidence, australopithecus, neanderthal, among many other species, and not just one fossil but multiple including some DNA from a couple like neanderthal.

thank you for some alleged evidences, well first of all

australopithecus is ape like (has a shovel face which all apes have, and also is missing a predominant nose ridge that all humans have)

next

neanderthal is human like.

so basically you have an ape like example

and a human like example, no transitions.