Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[inquiring mind]

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, unless you find it necessary to believe that God created man de novo.

Yep

It depends on which evolutionists you are talking to and what form divine intervention might take. I suspect that the issue here is not the divine authorship of our being but the Bible and how it is to be read.

I suspect you're right... except for the comment I was addressing.

 

[pitabread]

Don't know.

If you don't know what the barrier is then how do you know there is a barrier?

But it looks like it goes like this:

wolf → coyote → jackal → domestic dog

That's the best I can come up with traipsing around in academia.

So that means that only the wolf kind had to board the Ark.

Then after the Flood, they sired coyotes, who later sired jackals, who later sired domestic dogs.

So do you believe that a wolf one day gave birth to a coyote? And then one day a coyote gave birth a jackal? Is this how you think reproduction works?

(Honestly what it sounds like is that you've subscribed to the incorrect conceptualization of evolution as a "ladder of progress". There is no actual chain from wolf to coyote to jackal to modern dog, etc. What there is is relative points of common ancestry from which subsequent populations diverged and evolved alongside ancestral populations.

To put it another way, the modern wolf, coyote, jackal and domestic dog are all equally evolved animals. There is no ladder or chain of progress between them. Which conceptually speaking is very different than what you describe.

If your belief in a barrier in nature is based on an incorrect conceptual understanding of how populations reproduce and diversify, then I think we know why don't know what the barrier is.)

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't know what the barrier is then how do you know there is a barrier?

I don't know where Scotland ends and Wales begins, but I know there's a boundary.

So do you believe that a wolf one day gave birth to a coyote? And then one day a coyote gave birth a jackal? Is this how you think reproduction works?

All I assume, is that, if you save wolves, years later you'll have coyotes, jackals, and dogs.

Save coyotes though, and years later you'll have jackals and dogs, but no wolves.

Save jackals, and you'll have dogs, but no wolves or coyotes.

Save dogs, and years later ...

 

[pitabread]

All I assume, is that, if you save wolves, years later you'll have coyotes, jackals, and dogs.

Save coyotes though, and years later you'll have jackals and dogs, but no wolves.

Save jackals, and you'll have dogs, but no wolves or coyotes.

Save dogs, and years later ...

And why would this be the case?

 

[Kylie]

here:Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

So you are talking about size? Are you saying that since proteins can't be smaller than a specific size that evolution doesn't happen?

true. so? even if you have about 10^100 different ways to code for the same protein its actually nothing compare to the whole sequence sapce (20^300 for a tipical protein).

You don't think it's random, do you?

 

[Kylie]

yep. complex systems. eye or other organs are too complex to evolve naturally and therefore cant evolve by microevolution.

Is argument from incredulity the best you've got?

 

[pitabread]

Is argument from incredulity the best you've got?

He's also got self-replicating cars and robot penguins.

 

[AV1611VET]

And why would this be the case?

Am I wrong?

 

[pitabread]

Am I wrong?

Sort of.

Technically speaking if existing populations of wolves, coyotes, jackals went extinct, we wouldn't be able to necessarily re-evolve the identical species as the extinct ones. But there is nothing to implicitly prevent a similar species from emerging, including evolving from existing domestic dog populations.

If you think that is not possible then explain why not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sort of.

Technically speaking if existing populations of wolves, coyotes, jackals went extinct, we wouldn't be able to necessarily re-evolve the identical species as the extinct ones. But there is nothing to implicitly prevent a similar species from emerging, including evolving from existing domestic dog populations.

Did I just hear you say dogs can eventually "upgrade" to wolves?

If you think that is not possible then explain why not.

Evolution is trickle-down.

The gene pool gets worse every day.

 

[Speedwell]

Did I just hear you say dogs can eventually "upgrade" to wolves?Evolution is trickle-down.

The gene pool gets worse every day.

No, it just changes.

 

[pitabread]

Did I just hear you say dogs can eventually "upgrade" to wolves?

Evolution isn't about upgrading. Again, you have an incorrect conceptual understanding of evolution as a ladder. That's not how it works.

Gene pools just change over time. No upgrades, downgrades, side-grades, anything of the sort.

Just change.

Evolution is trickle-down.

The gene pool gets worse every day.

What does this mean? How does the gene pool get worse? What is the metric by which you are measuring how "good" a gene pool is?

If you had to sample from two different gene pools, how would you determine which is better or worse than the other?

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Are you trying to drag me into the ring of science, so you can vegomatick me with an encyclopedia?

 

[pitabread]

Are you trying to drag me into the ring of science, so you can vegomatick me with an encyclopedia?

You're making specific claims about biology and how you think it works. I'm trying to see if you can explain what you think.

If you want to skip all the foreplay though, I can tell you flat out that your conceptual understanding of biology and evolution is incorrect. Ergo, a lot of what you are claiming is also incorrect.

 

[pitabread]

(deleted)

(created a new thread instead)

 

[Kylie]

His Boolean standards apply to his interpretation, not to an excessively literalist interpretation.

The trouble is that it seems to be the other way around - his interpretation doesn't seem to stem from his boolean standards, the standards stem from his interpretation.

 

[Kylie]

All I assume, is that, if you save wolves, years later you'll have coyotes, jackals, and dogs.

Just out of curiosity, how many years do you think it will take?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, how many years do you think it will take?

1000?

 

[Kylie]

1000?

Off by quite a bit. The most recent common ancestor between modern wolves and modern dogs was about 15,000 years ago. And for jackals, we have to go back almost half a million years.

"Our divergence time estimates imply that dogs and wolves diverged 14.9 thousand years ago..."

"Interestingly, we inferred a divergence time of 398 kya (382–415 kya) between the golden jackal and the population ancestral to dogs and wolves, which is considerably more recent than previously reported."

Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs

 

[AV1611VET]

Off by quite a bit.

But did I get the direction (trickle down) right?