Login

Join for Free!
116953 members


Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re:

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:20 pm

canalon wrote:DNA polymorphism around the location of the gene responsible for melanism (a region they have identified, not yet the exact gene) is extremely limited.

I know about the reduction of polymorphism being an indication of recent selection - I've published a bit about this stuff myself - but I think claiming "recent" to be within historical times would be extremely difficult short of genotyping a large sample of pre- and post-industrial moths. This is why I'm curious to see what the authors of the paper say.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Re:

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:22 pm

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

Now you've got it!
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Re:

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:32 pm

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

Now you've got it!
Now you're noticing that I've got it !
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 10:36 pm

So if both evolution and your devolution have no direction, what is it you're trying to say?
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 10:42 pm

Gavin wrote:So if both evolution and your devolution have no direction, what is it you're trying to say?
If evolution has no direction, then what are you trying to say ? Whatever you are trying to to say, I can say that same thing, too.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Re:

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:45 pm

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

... you have failed to provide a definition
Untrue. As I explained, about this hitherto unexplored subject...this reversal of a trend of the frequency change, is de-evolution. I will accept more a more suitable term for this occurrence - should you come up with one.
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 10:49 pm

Crucible wrote:Whatever you are trying to to say, I can say that same thing, too.

Does this mean our discussion of alleles and their frequencies is finished?
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby honee_v » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:51 pm

Tomn wrote:I have experience this in real life. And now I have experienced this on this forum.

JackBean has been the cause of this, twice. Although, he is not a board moderator, he has gotten 2 topics closed down, with him making the last comment.

Again, JackBean is a registered user, not a board moderator, and he thus he does not have the permission to lock down a thread. Some board moderator who agrees with him is behind this.



JackBean is one of the highly valued moderators of this Forum. He has the right to edit or lock topics at any time he sees fit. As specified in the Forum Rules:

8. Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members note an issue which contravenes something in this policy document, they are welcome to bring it to the attention of a member of the Biology-Online Mod Team. Do not respond to such topics yourself. Members who consistently "act" as moderators may be warned.

and

11. The moderating team reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. as noted in these points is up to mod team and not users.

The Evolution Forum is open for everyone to discuss, debate, agree, or argue... but all your posts will be moderated especially when the threads/posts have become (or are starting to) get out of hand NOT because the moderators do not share your views. As I can see, Jackbean has warned many times before locking the threads.

We value your viewing/sharing of your views, facts, etc. but you should also be ready to have your posts moderated. Otherwise, we will have to be strict and impose user ban accordingly.

Admin
"Why you care about small things? World very simple place...
World only have two things: Things you can eat and things you no can eat."

- Quina Quen (ffix)
User avatar
honee_v
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:28 am

Re: Re:

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:38 am

Gavin wrote:
canalon wrote:DNA polymorphism around the location of the gene responsible for melanism (a region they have identified, not yet the exact gene) is extremely limited.

I know about the reduction of polymorphism being an indication of recent selection - I've published a bit about this stuff myself - but I think claiming "recent" to be within historical times would be extremely difficult short of genotyping a large sample of pre- and post-industrial moths. This is why I'm curious to see what the authors of the paper say.


Tehy do not quote any time line and just conclude that:
The rapid spread of an initially unique haplotype, driven by strong positive selection, is expected to generate the profile of linkage disequilibrium we have observed (18), establishing that UK industrial melanism in the peppered moth was seeded by a single recent mutation that spread to most parts of mainland Britain and also colonized the Isle of Man


So yes, I was interpreting a bit the data by saying that it is consistent with the polymorphism observed, because even if it so, longer time might not have changed the result much considering the rhythm at which the DNA clock is ticking. But we also know, thanks to the British lepidopterists of the XIXth century that before the advent of the industrial revolution, the carbonaria morph represented less than 2% of the total population. And that it is also now quickly disappearing thanks to cleaner air above Britain.
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: Re:

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:40 am

Crucible wrote:
canalon wrote:
Crucible wrote:and so neither would de-evolution !

... you have failed to provide a definition
Untrue. As I explained, about this hitherto unexplored subject...this reversal of a trend of the frequency change, is de-evolution. I will accept more a more suitable term for this occurrence - should you come up with one.

it is evolution. Whether you want it or not, there is no direction in evolution, random changes in allele frequencies and deviation from the previous norm or trend are all part of the game. You are trying to isolate a concept that does not exist. It is all evolution.
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

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:44 am

MOD NOTE: I will unlock what our grand master had locked, because in spite of the shallowness (if there is such a word) of some of the arguments, some discussion even in this thread make sense. So I will let those go for the moment, and hopefully not have to regret my abuse of moderating power. And If I regrte it, I will just lock the thread again. :roll:
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: Re:

Postby Crucible » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:59 am

... you have failed to provide a definition
Untrue. As I explained, about this hitherto unexplored subject...this reversal of a trend of the frequency change, is de-evolution. [/quote]Since you offered a threat of possible action, you can now admit that you were wrong - once more. I did offer definition.

it is evolution. Whether you want it or not, there is no direction in evolution
and there is no direction in de-evolution, whether you want it or not.

random changes in allele frequencies and deviation from the previous norm or trend are all part of the game.
the above statement says nothing wrt our subject. all those can occur, so what ? Previously my angle has not been noticed, that's all.

You are trying to isolate a concept that does not exist. It is all evolution.
Evolutionary change - done and undone .The undoing part now is simply recognized and named.

You'll need to think on more than the one usual level, in order to see the subtle nature of my proposal. You'll need to keep strictly to the book definitions, and you may see that the change becomes reversed.

Evolution is allele frequency change. A frequency change occurred, but then was undone.
Frequency went from 1 in 15 to ZERO and back ! De-evolution happening.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron