Login

Join for Free!
116889 members


Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re:

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:46 pm

Gavin wrote:Complaining? Who's complaining? About what?
that it's not a population.

Families are not generally considered to be populations, but nice try.
you mean nice fait accompli

If your future brother-in-law has the same allele as you have, then it is elsewhere in the population (not referring to your family).

Nope, because I defined the population from the start as my family, and he wasn't part of that group then.
I explicitly showed how my demise ordinarily might be evolution, but definitely WOULD be evolution, if the population were to be defined as "my family" and no other copies existed in my family.
Correct ? I get killed, it might be evolution.
If the population is my family, and I get killed, and so my very nicest, my most prized allele - which coincidentally no living relative shares - becomes less frequent, it is evolution.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:23 pm

Okay, I glanced by your earlier definition of population as your family. Sorry. If the allele in question was unique to only you and your future brother-in-law, who is homozygous for the allele, in your family, and both of his parents are dead (they both had the allele), and he had no siblings, and your niece or nephew survives (or not), and you get killed, then the frequency of the allele is always changing within the human population. If the overall frequency of the allele in the human population, with all these marriages and births and deaths, changes, then your death and loss of YOUR copy of the allele will impact the population genetics of humans (concerning this allele), which I THINK is what you were trying to say earlier.

Are you defining a change in frequency of single alleles in populations, however small, as evolution? I'm just trying to understand your use of the word "evolution".
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:28 pm

Before it gets buried too deeply in this thread, has anyone had a look at the Science paper concerning melanism in the peppered moth (near the top of the previous page)? I'm very curious to know the rationale behind the authors' claim of the mutation being recent.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am


Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:41 pm

Gavin wrote:Okay, I glanced by your earlier definition of population as your family. Sorry. If the allele in question was unique to only you and your future brother-in-law, who is homozygous for the allele, in your family, and both of his parents are dead (they both had the allele), and he had no siblings, and your niece or nephew survives (or not), and you get killed, then the frequency of the allele is always changing within the human population. If the overall frequency of the allele in the human population, with all these marriages and births and deaths, changes, then your death and loss of YOUR copy of the allele will impact the population genetics of humans (concerning this allele), which I THINK is what you were trying to say earlier.

Are you defining a change in frequency of single alleles in populations, however small, as evolution? I'm just trying to understand your use of the word "evolution".

Yes, I'm pointing out that "population" is another term that is used arbitrarily, in building the "evolution" picture.

However, I'm only saying that it would be evolution within the population described (my family ) - and only maybe, evolution within humanity. Then de-evolution when the allele came back through Brother-in-Law's donation.

It's analogous to hybridization.
Last edited by Crucible on Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:45 pm

OK. But I don't know what you mean by de-evolution.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:49 pm

Gavin wrote:OK. But I don't know what you mean by de-evolution.
Reversing the trend of that allele's frequency. FIrst it was evolution (when I got killed), then it was reversed when the allele came back into the population. I'm calling that "de-evolution", for want of a more catchy term
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:56 pm

Aren't there any rules about this kind of thing ? How about if I say the population I'm studying, is just me ?

Got anything against that ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Postby canalon » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:56 pm

For the peppered moth recent, means that it might very well be contemporary with the advent of the industrial revolution. Because when looking at DNA polymorphism around the location of the gene responsible for melanism (a region they have identified, not yet the exact gene) is extremely limited. Which hints to an event that is recent in terms of molecular clock, and a few centuries is very recent using that particular scale.

Crucible,
I would add that using your family as a population in evolution is not a good idea. Because what generally constitute a population in evolutionary theory is a group of interbreeding individuals. So unless you want to tell us that your family has some generally frowned upon habits when it comes to mating, I suggest you rethink your example. So since in general populations are large enough to limit breeding from close kin, the effect of the removal of one gene copy is generally minimal. Unless the population is quite small. But what you are trying to talk about is generally described as genetic drift, it is well known effect that can be measured and studied (but its outcome are generally not predictable). Look it up.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:01 pm

canalon wrote:
I would add that using your family as a population in evolution is not a good idea. Because what generally constitute a population in evolutionary theory is a group of interbreeding individuals.
That's us, then. So it's agreed - it's evolution. Then de-evolution. One could only hope that you would not allow your socially ingrained biases to rule out admitting Scientific Truths.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Postby canalon » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:10 pm

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution has no direction.
A more general point is that evolution happens to populations (group of interbreeding individuals) not to individuals. The only question is whether or not the modification affect the gene frequency in the pool. If it is very rare, your death at 10 might have been significant. But if you had only common genes, that would not make a difference.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:13 pm

canalon wrote:There is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution has no direction.
and so neither would de-evolution !
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Re:

Postby canalon » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:18 pm

Crucible wrote:
canalon wrote:There is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution has no direction.
and so neither would de-evolution !

Sure but since it is not an accepted word, and that you have failed to provide a definition, I have to assume its meaning from its etymology. De-evolution, would then be the opposite of evolution, and that does not make sense since all change is evolution, even if it appears to go in the opposite direction it was going earlier. But if you want to tell me that you were just spouting incoherent words for the fun of it, I will accept that. But warn you as a mod, that this is not debate, and that I might have to act... if this become a major contention at least, more likely I might ignore you.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron