Evolution is a Joke IX

I have to jump in because you're driving me nuts. But first I"m going to have to assume that you do believe that our DNA contains the (for want of a better term) blueprints and genes, or groups of genes, interact, switch each other on or off, and affect how we grow, what we look like, etc. So you don't think that Mendelian genetics is all bunk, right? And the reason daughters look like their parents (both of them) is because they got about half of their genes from each parent. Cool? You keep objecting to evolution but the thing you're objecting to? It's an example of evolution but it certainly isn't the only way a scientist would describe it. Actually, a scientist wouldn't answer the question "what is evolution" by talking about apes and man and all that. It might come up later on but the actual definition of evolution is very straightforward. Believe it or not you believe in evolution.

Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's it. And anybody with a petri dish and a gene sequencer can observe it, and nowadays undergrads actually have access to equipment which even a decade ago was still thought to be 50 years out. You know that an allele is one of a larger number of forms of a gene, and while sometimes the different forms don't appear to have any effect generally they result in phenotypic variances like eye color, stature, and countless other factors that will be distributed among a population. Some are rarer than others, and many are common. So albinism is typically a lot rarer than freckles, and so on. Biologists don't just sit around trying to assemble bits of bone into something that will probably fool the public and get them some exposure. They also spend a great deal of time mapping out the frequency and nature of these alleles in a population and watching the ratios change.

So this is evolution, and you obviously believe in it because you can't pretend that it's not possible to wander down to the closest university and ask to have a peek. I highly recommend taking such a tour - you have an enormous number of misconceptions for someone who purports to know that it's all a joke.

Anyway, since you actually do believe in evolution let me explain to you what you don't believe. You don't think it's possible for sufficient genetic drift to take place to cause the "big" kinds of change you keep misunderstanding. Speciation, for example, one species changing into another one, completely different. You don't believe this is possible but it's only a small part of the evolutionary process. As the frequency of alleles changes in a population you have no choice but to admit that you're observing evolution, but generally creationists pretend there's a different word for this. They call it micro-evolution and it's been pretty much ok to admit to it for about 30 years, before which they hadn't co-opted the term from biologists, who tend not to use it anymore.

So developing resistance to a virus, or darker skin as your group moves south - like it or not this is all evolution in action, and quite easy to see even in big mammals over sometimes only a handful of generations. Creationists like to claim that it's macro-evolution that doesn't happen. And you've already mocked the idea by asserting that only by observing a huge change can it be verified as possible. But of course a frog is never going to give birth to a horse, so demanding such a thing as evidence is actually demanding to see something which, if it happened, would actually toss evolutionary theory the kind of curve ball creationists keep promising but never deliver.

The change is slow. And from one generation to the next the only variation you're likely to observe will be phenotypical. It's like looking at your small child every day and thinking, "hmm - this kid isn't changing at all from yesterday to now. Or even the day before" and concluding that children couldn't possibly be younger variants of those things on medicare. The change is gradual.

So now you understand that you really do believe in evolution. You don't believe that some pretty fundamental things happen, but then this stuff is super complicated and it's to be expected that a lot of normal folks just won't understand the science. But the fact that you, and creationists in general, choose to accept parts of the theory and reject others when the evidence for all of it is too plentiful for one person to ever get through, you choose the parts of the theory which have implications that don't sit well for some religious people. If you're not religious at all then I'm impressed - you are the first secular person I've ever met who didn't believe in evolution. But even you've got to admit that by rejecting only the bits that kind of cut into bible territory the creationists are showing their hands just a bit, right?

You don't see any of them getting all frothy about gravity. And yes, there is a good reason to bring it up. Gravity (the theory, not the thing itself) is far less understood than evolution. It's actually still so poorly understood it's a special case - nobody's figured out how it works with the other three forces. But evolution, initially a very restricted branch of biology, plays well with chemistry, genetics, there's a lot of math, and everything is physics, right? I could go on. If you want a theory that is not well formed at all pick on gravity. It can more than handle itself.

 

Honestly, don't bother. I told him that was the definition of evolution in like the second of these threads. He doesn't care, he is a troll.

 

I tried to explain it in words that anyone could understand, dumbed it down as far as I could possibly go..... Doesn't make a bit of difference to this one, it is a lost cause when they can't even understand the definition of a simple word like propagation!!!!
I look far beyond ignorance like this, wondering more if there are others listening in that can actually evolve beyond their own misconceptions!

Entering into a pointless diatribe with this one, yes, not worth it! But as long as it provides an arena to share with others? I don't mind it!

Pointless as far as my own responsibility, that would be if I was here simply to stroke my own ego; I am here as an offering to advance knowledge, isn't that the point?

 

I don't use the word lightly. But creationists who aren't even willing to consider the actual definition of the thing they feel so strongly about is pathological.

If I insisted Christianity is bunk because Jesus was made out of bacon I'm sure there would be a line around the block to point out I was confused.

 

No, it's natural selection.

 

No, the term isn't misleading. Selecting a mutation, be it through natural or artificial means, which then propagates through the species is evolution.

 

Evolution is ANYTHING that chances the frequency of genes in a gene pool over generations.

 

Let me explain this to you. We are discussing evolution. Right? If you looked up any of those words (Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift) in biology.com you would see the word “evolution” somewhere within the text.

As I stated before – please use the correct terms dealing with evolution. That is what I am talking about… I have said it like five (5) times. PLEASE USE WORDS THAT ARE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT OF EVOLUTION.

I cannot and will not play your game of word/phrase make up. “Stressor” and “Propagation” are not words you use when discussion evolution! DO YOU UNDERSTAND!! Do I have to repeat myself…?

You can say what you want, but the only fool is the person who reads a link and “still” doesn’t get it… Now, if you want to discuss evolution, use the correct terminology please… Do you understand that…? Do you understand…? Do I need to explain again to you or do you think you’ve got it?

 

GRASPING?!?!

Back from being banned are we? Nothing else to do, or no other sites left to get banned from?

 

For the past six months I have been pretty busy with my schoolwork, so it ended up working out in the end for me. I really just came back to see if you were still engaging in meaningless drivel. You are. Thus, it's a question of which is sadder: your continuous creation of these threads for the past half year or your continuous recycling of arguments. They're both pretty bad.

 

I was under the impression that change in allele frequency in a population over time was genetic drift…

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...21.18.0.4.4.0.297.1876.0j5j5.10.0.flxwSdKHM0s

First speciation isn’t the change from one species to another, speciation is the separation of a species and they evolve differently, but when they are introduced to each other they can mate again… There are four kinds, if I remember correctly, or should I say types of speciation…

What do you consider “adaptation” and what is “evolution”….?

We don’t know how long it takes since it has never been observed…

No… not really… Per the scientific method, you need to have experimentation. We have observed adaptation, not evolution.

There are many things that we don’t understand outside of biology… so therefore, we keep them outside of biology when discussing biology…

 

The passing of DNA is genetic drift...

 

Or that you came back to participate in what you say is "meaningless drivel"... I think that is the saddest...

 

I don't see how leaving for six months than coming back is worse than making the same menial arguments for the past two years.

LOL, we know that you are under that impression, and let me tell you again that you're just flat out wrong. The first link from Google even says "Genetic drift occurs when a population's allele frequencies change due to random events." Yes, genetic drift is the change in allele frequency... only when that change is caused by random events. Seriously, I've been trying to tell you this for quite awhile now. Every single website that describes genetic drift indicates that it occurs due to random events. But you'll just ignore that over and over again.

 

hence the 'religious' demeanor.

but the sad part is the guy works for the government and i would bet 90% of his posts, if not all are on 'our' dime!

 

You still don't seem to understand do you?
I am specifically discussing natural selection as it relates to speciation and doing so in depth..... Natural selection is the most important component to speciation, and speciation is the most significant identifier in mapping out evolution.
Natural selection is not random, why do you suppose it isn't random?

The environment or any aspect of favor dictates what variants will continue within a species..... Now, if a species has fully adapted to it's environment, it will begin to develop abundance in it's population; without an environmental 'stressor' that pushes this species it begins a random aspect of allelic drift....
Now, if speciation occurred from allelic drift in population abundance, we would have very clear and gradual evidence in fossil record....
The reality is that this is natures way of equalizing population abundance by showing a relative 'negative' or weak drift; the natural ebb and flow, nothing more, nothing less.
We know that speciation occurs when environment strongly, and forcibly dictates an adaptation only allowing the strongest characteristics as a response; in effect it acts as a definite stressor!
The reason I use the term stressor is obvious to anyone who can grasp the most simple concepts of natural selection leading to speciation.
The reality is that I am being friendly in my use of terms, apparently it is impossible to simplify it (dumb it down) enough for you to gain basic understanding.

As far as your problem with propagation, it's so absurd it doesn't even warrant a response!

 

You will also note that I don't ever use stressor independently!

 

I suggest you read the first sentence in your link, which is in the evolution section of Wikipedia. Genetic drift is a special case of change due to random sampling. Why lie? Did you think I wouldn't click in your link?

I'm not going to address the rest of your post after you demonstrate your dishonesty like this. Your opinions don't count.

 

This certainly speaks volumes now doesn't it?

So I guess you were under the impression here as well?
Speciation is speciation, there is anagenesis and cladogenesis speciation. The difference is simply that the entire population sees a 'gradual' change, or there is a divergence in population where two or more evolve (parallel) independently in adaptation to a different environment of favor/ 'stressor'.
Now, this is where propagation rate has a highly profound influence on type and frequency of speciation.... A species with a very slow propagation rate is more inclined to show phyletic gradualism (anagenesis) within it's genus of very few defined points of divergence (cladogenesis), while a species with a very fast propagation rate is more inclined to show heightened cladogenesis (many points of divergence) within it's genus, where it shows accelerated anagenesis.

 

If it were false, we shouldn't have directly observed the evolution of microorganisms. Unfortunately for creationists, we have done so.

 

I think that ring species is a better example of observable evolution for the simple fact that it demonstrates divergence where the final form of the two is unable to breed with one another. It becomes poignant when we begin to realize that each final form is however able to hybridize with the form prior to it's divergence. I will also note that the hybridized form is not successful in nature, leading us to understand the mechanism of natural selection as it relates to the environmental favor/stressor. In essence, the divergence saw drastically different environmental forces and influences (stressor) which dictated how that form would evolve; hybridize it and that hybridization is not properly adapted/evolved to suit it's environment, it will not see or it is highly unlikely to see continuation.

 

Oh Grasping… How I missed you and your little word play… It’s so fun watching you FAIL… Well, we have until the end of the week… I will shoot for 8 FAIL’s for you by Friday COB… Good Luck!

The beginning statement was that Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time as seen here:

Now, I will serve you your first FAIL of the week and you can answer it yourself… Genetic Drift is a mechanism of evolution. YOU – and I will have to bold this because you have trouble remembering things YOU just posted that GENETIC DRIFT IS CAUSED BY RANDOM EVENTS…

Now how in WORLD can a mechanism “OF” evolution be CAUSED BY RANDOM EVENTS, but evolution not be caused by random events? Riddle me that one…?

OR do you think that nothing within evolution isn’t caused by random events…? Or… What is it your saying since you just FAILED!!!

FAIL – seven more to go…

 

Where? When...?

 

No you were not because I don’t remember you ever using any “evolutionary terms” until now and once before… Also, you are NOT talking about speciation in depth… or haven’t yet… I should be specific…

But, I will continue reading…

Wait… had to stop you right there… what the heck do you mean “fully adapted”? Since there are TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of species on this planet, please NAME ONE that has NOT fully adapted to their environment…?

Again, with you making absolutely no sense whatsoever – I will continue and I might get something out of this…

Wow… This is incorrect… Just because a species is comfortable within it’s ecosystem has no influence or bearing on whether it will reproduce…

Do you seriously think that I think you know what you’re talking about? Because you obviously don’t… Every human on this planet is adapted quite well, but that doesn’t mean you are going to fill the world with your seed now does it? That statement is retarded…

There’s those Stressors again… Please link me a definition of “stressor” as you are using it… and again, if you mean like doing taxes makes someone hair turn blonde, again that’s also retarded….

Speciation doesn’t occur from allelic drift…. You are on the brink of being completely dismissed…

For dumbing it down, your post is almost retarded… ecosystems do NOT, and I will repeat this, DO NOT dictate adaptation and or speciation. Stressors again… I showed you a website that was dated in like the 1920’s that talked about stressors, if that is what you are trying to bring back with the Charleston, but it won’t work since that has failed the scientific method… No such animal as a stressor, so please stop using it unless you can find me a link from the past 10 years that uses it with their text as you are… Well, I don’t even know how you are using it since it never makes since…

Okay – give me the definitions of stressor and propagation as dealing with evolution please… Let’s start there. I will give you a chance FIRST… The rest of your post is just ridiculous and you have no clue what you are talking about….

 

I understand that you “don’t” understand… You stated that evolution is “change in allele’s over time” – I said that is incorrect and is genetic drift… Because genetic drift is “change in allele’s over time”. Why and how does change happen in allele’s in evolution? Why and how does it happen in genetic drift?

I will bet my avatar it’s the same way SINCE THE CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCY WITHIN EVOLUTION IS CAUSED BY GENETIC DRIFT!!!! Ooops… Ummm – yea… Or you can give me some other “mechanism” within evolution that change in allele frequency within a population over time occurs? Which you can’t…

Your post is, and was incorrect… You are welcome for educating you a little more this day!

Uhhh – what? No worries, when I internet pimp slap folks that’s what “usually” happens… They run… Good day! Enjoy reading from the sidelines…