Oh goodness! Has someone claimed allele frequencies don't change?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh goodness! Has someone claimed allele frequencies don't change?I have made no such presumption. I am simply asking why bacteria not changing into something that isn't bacteria during the historical period of observation invalidates the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time.
How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.
What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.
nested hierarchy, which evolution supports with much evidence, and which intelligent design supports and/or opposes with exactly no evidence.
At no point did I say anything of the kind. I simply stated that change in allele frequency has been observed within populations over time.
How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.
I am not changing goal posts. Rather you are calling goal posts matchsticks. I have stated there is no problem with the fact that kinds adapt. That is all allele fequency speaks to. Nothing more. You simply cannot assimilate this information.
Change in allele frequency over time is observed in populations from petri dish to prairie. Therefore, evolution occurs. This is not difficult to understand, is it?
Yes and again you are offering no evidnce for macroevolution other than to extrapolate that a bird that changes beak size means they were a reptile, which is nonsense.
What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.
Evolution is not a fact other than in the minds of those that think that mysteries and inconsistencies are science.
Define hugely.
30% that is closer to the comparative truth as opposed to the 1%, no that changed to 2%, no that changed to 5%. That is what I mean by huge comparative diferences. 30% is a huge difference and they haven't found all the differences yet and still the 30% does not reflect all genomic differences eg gene expression and function, different hot spots, difference genome surface structure, 10% difference in genome size.
.
Nevermind. Regardless of your definition, humans and chimps are more closely related than any other species within the nested hierarchy, which evolution supports with much evidence, and which intelligent design supports and/or opposes with exactly no evidence.
I will mind because you keep speaking to allele fruquency as being some sort of evidence of macroevolution. It is not. It is an example of microevolution that is specualted and wished into macroevolution eventually....and THIS IS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY ALLELE FREQUENCY CHANGES.. GET IT.
At no point did I say anything of the kind. I simply stated that change in allele frequency has been observed within populations over time. Please stop trying to turn my arguments into pretty little strawpeople.
Good. The stop going on about it. We agree. Allele frequency does not demonstrate macroevolution and macroevolution has not been demonstrated let alone observed. Changes in allele frequency simply demonstrates that my alleles may change as I adapt to a colder climate while I live and age, and how my grand daughter may uptake certian traits from her mum, but not how an ape became human.
In other words, change in allele frequency within the fruit fly population over time. Cool. Glad you've come around.
Yeah, but it did not even fix in a population which is REQUIRED by your theories and highly unlikely to occur in the real world. It just happens in predetermined algorithmic world..
"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
How many more times do we have to say 'There is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency' before you understand that there is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency?
Because you have not seen nor demonstrated any continuum of anything
You have put up post after post of the same rhetoric that does not demonstrate macroevolution and only actually supports microchanges related to adaptation. Your wishlist hopes subtle changes produces macrochanges but you have no evidence for this.
Thanks for making my point!
No allele frequencies that do not fix in the population do not support your point at all. Rather the opposite. You do realise, don't you that there is contradictory research relating the veracity of selective sweeps some of your algorithms use?
Chatter all you want, your point remains faulty. Change in allele frequency within population over time has been observed, therefore evolution.
No it is your point that remains faulty. In fact I have never heard an evolutionist be so stubborn and unable to see the difference. Your out in orbit on your own as far as using changes in allele frequency to demonstrate macroevolution goes, pal. Most evos aren't that silly.
Allele frequency change has been observed and results in adaptation that is limited. Why is it limited? Because a dog, despite the huge array, will never be as big as a horse nor as small as a mouse. The canine genetic variablility is therefore observed to be limited. To say that something the size of a mouse poofed into something the size of an elephant is not observed. Dogs with all their allele differences are still dogs. Why? Because changes in allele frequency and traits are adaptive or bred for. They are still dogs and were never squirrel like tree climbers. You can change the allele frequency of a squirell like creature as much as you want and it will never adapt into a dog or human or cow. You can have as many changes in allele frequency as you want and a non placental mammal will never poof a placenta into being and reorganise the reproductive system of its' mother either.
I'm not sure how any of this invalidates biological evolution. HGT would, it seems, contribute to quite rapid change in allele frequency over time.Evidence 1 speaks to genomic similarity. This was great while the irrefuteable flavour of the month was single cell abiogenesis. Now with the advent of HGT multiple so called 'primitive cells' ( a contradiction in terms for a start with a living cell being a complex factory) are thought to have arisen.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LUCA is dead, although some researchers are still grappling around trying to revive her.
This deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And how is it, exactly, that it disproves change in allele frequency over time?If multiple living cells that arose independently were so alike that they were able to share genomic material by HGT then what you have actually theorised is that all life, no matter how or when it arises on earth, is going to be based on the same genetic code. If they were of different design there would have been no HGT and you would find some life totally different than another. That would at least have provided a plausible scenario which you lot haven't as yet.
What?Life forms a food chain. It must have been created on a similar code for the uptake of nutrients.
Really? Could you please present the evidence that birds predate all non-avian dinosaurs? Or is your point that birds predate some non-avian dinosaurs? Because we already knew this. Also, in what way would any of this disprove evolution?Nested hiererchies use algorithms. If there is observed data that birds predate dinosaurs, which there is,
DNA evidence is not necessary to understand the nested hierarchy; morphological characteristics were used to define it long before DNA sequencing was available.They are assumptive and speculative as you do not have dna from ancient species.
You're right, it's completely unreasonable that organisms inhabiting similar ecological niches would develop similar morphological characteristics. Why nektonic sea creatures need to by hydrodynamically efficient is beyond me.You now have convergent evolution and homoplasy to hand wave away that data which does not align.
It absolutely is. If not, provide an example of what WOULD be.No 1 again is not OBSERVED evidence for macroevolution.
No agenda here.
How does this invalidate evolution, which is the change in allele frequency in a population over time?1.4 re bird fossils has already been falsified by bird footprints predating the supposed ancestors, despite all the woffle about jawbones.
Statements of complete misunderstanding of the subject matter in no way help your case.your nested hierachies could demonstate our closest living relative is a turtle if that is what was required to support evolution.
Oh hey, another article supportive of evolution!The male human/chimp Y chromosome demonstrates that there is no relationship between mankind and chimp
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Abstract : Nature
Hughes et al. said:Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years.
Humans ARE apes.Example 3 -human apes is a laugh. What you have are a bunch of apes right up to the last 2 skulls.. Flatter faces have been around in apes for 12 million years with LLuc. Even some of the Neandethal fossils are simply apes like J, K & L. Just look to the nasal cavities that are the same as apes. The reconstructions are no doubt biased.
New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features
I have already said your best example of erectus, Turksana Boy, is an ape. His head on side view looks like a variety of ape. His upper thigh bone is very long at the socket and does not resemple an ape or human thigh bone at all. It is all fraudulent misrepresentation.
Read this from your own
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Humans ARE apes.As for intrmediates you do not have any that demonstrate a change from ape to human
Show me where an archaeologist or biologist has said that Indohyus was a whale. Because I can't find it. Anyway, in what way does this disprove change in allele frequency in populations over time?or from deer to whale. What you have are totally different kinds that bear no ancestry. For example Indohyus, an early whale (wait while I stop laughing) is simply a variety of mouse deer.
What?Then poof you have an example of an aligator or crocodile kind. Then you have a skinny whale as if you lot know what any flesh looks like an a skeleton eg. Remember the misrepresentation of neanderthal the ape man now said to be perfectly human. Ikes.
Learning new things is scary, huh?How do you stand the constant instability?
I'm not sure how any of this invalidates biological evolution. HGT would, it seems, contribute to quite rapid change in allele frequency over time.
You are so out of the loop clearly. I used HGT to demonstrate another point which has clearly evaded you
This deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And how is it, exactly, that it disproves change in allele frequency over time?
What?
Really? Could you please present the evidence that birds predate all non-avian dinosaurs? Or is your point that birds predate some non-avian dinosaurs? Because we already knew this. Also, in what way would any of this disprove evolution?
I have provided the links to the footprints dated to 212my. Now you are just playing dumb or purposefully being irritating..
DNA evidence is not necessary to understand the nested hierarchy; morphological characteristics were used to define it long before DNA sequencing was available.
Too bad your researcher have no idea! BTW humans are more morphologically closer to ornags. Do I need to spoon feed you that information also?
You're right, it's completely unreasonable that organisms inhabiting similar ecological niches would develop similar morphological characteristics. Why nektonic sea creatures need to by hydrodynamically efficient is beyond me.
It absolutely is. If not, provide an example of what WOULD be.
No agenda here.
How does this invalidate evolution, which is the change in allele frequency in a population over time?
Statements of complete misunderstanding of the subject matter in no way help your case.
Just for fun, provide an example of a nested hierarchy that represents turtles, humans, and chimps, and in which the turtle is shown to be closer to the human based on both DNA and gross morphology. Then explain why your example is as valid (or more valid) than the nested hierarchy used by biologists today.
Oh hey, another article supportive of evolution!
Humans ARE apes.
Humans ARE apes.
Show me where an archaeologist or biologist has said that Indohyus was a whale. Because I can't find it. Anyway, in what way does this disprove change in allele frequency in populations over time?
Evolution of whales challenged
How does this article support your point? Yes, our understanding of animal history changes as new evidence arises. Heaven forbid.
I'll give one more reply to your pandemic of rhetoric. I was speaking to the 29 evidence of macroevolution that uses whale lineage as evidence and demonstrated that what you have are frausdulent misrepresentations.
You use the typical evolutionist ploy of solid ignorance to any point made. That is a loosers game.
If you are going to waste time do so. I have today and tomorrow to run you around.
What?
Learning new things is scary, huh
Only for you obviously.?
Oh strawman! I never asserted that. Rather, I asserted that there was EVIDENCE for macroevolution, which I provided.It is YOU who are moving goalposts! This particular tangent started with the ridiculous assertion that we have observed macro-evolution. (Nobody here is contesting what you state here.)
Granted. However, the weight of the evidence supports it.As are you. Primordial ooze to modern man is theoretical, not factual.
There is no line. If there was, you would be able to point out its location.I won't pretend to draw a boundary line defining macroevolution, but this is one side of that line, while bacteria still being bacteria is on the other.
That's right. If the shoe fits.And to think, it was you who in this thread used the words canard and stupid.
So then you're willing to admit macro evolution is not observed, and therefore not factual? Pretty sure that's all anybody is going for here. (I'll even grant you that it's theoretically plausible.
Oh that's fresh. Present the evidence here. Or in a new thread, wherever. Either way, I'd hate for this evidence to go unshared.Ipresent observed evidence for creation.
He's moved the goalposts alright, but pay attention!It is YOU who are moving goalposts! This particular tangent started with the ridiculous assertion that we have observed macro-evolution. (Nobody here is contesting what you state here.)How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.
They are the elite overlords. Any time they want, with a mere snap of the fingers, they can get a "judge" to say so.What's more, who do any of you evos think you are to tell anyone what they should or should not believe?
"that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;" - Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823
Oh that's fresh. Present the evidence here. Or in a new thread, wherever. Either way, I'd hate for this evidence to go unshared.
Don't hold your breath on that one. Hammerhead sharks have placentas and give birth to live young. They're not even "bony fish". Any evostory'd turn all their counterfeit "trees of life" (Never ever to be confused with the real Tree of Life) into a mess.Fact: A creature cannot design itself a placenta while facilitating biological change in mum. This is proof that mammal kinds were created and could not evolve. The change is simply hand waved away by evolutionists without any demonstration as to how a placenta may have 'evolved'
Astridhere said:... This theory also just happens to place earth at or near the centre of the universe. ...
Orogeny said:Oh strawman! I never asserted that. Rather, I asserted that there was EVIDENCE for macroevolution, which I provided.
Orogeny said:Granted. However, the weight of the evidence supports it.
Astridhere said:TOE is a clear as mud......and no creationist has reason to convert.
Bacteria are still bacteria, after how many generations, being observed in the lab? And finches are still, finches.
I don't see that Adam named every species on the planet that we currently see, or that every species was on the Ark. So speciation itself is a biblical concept. But if you stick to the scientific method, it doesn't allow one to go very far into the past. I say not at all, but I'll give it a little wiggle room. Only as far back as written history can confirm things.
Two items.
Because everything is expanding away from everything else, any point in the cosmos is at the center. So Science proves the earth is the center.
Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
Item two. There seems to be no life anywhere else. So again, we are the center. We are the only ones writing headlines, so we get so claim the center of everything.Don't be so sad that we are "it". Just try and figure out why. Again, we are the center.
And you are still a eukaryote, an animal, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a mammal, a primate and an ape. As I say here frequently, you cannot escape your ancestry. However, the geological column shows there was a time where there were no finches, and a time even when there was no bacteria. I have yet to hear a good explanation for that from you creationists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?