by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
cofty let me know if I am still hijacking I'll just stop and will post no moren.
So lets say A fathers B. And the gene difference between A and B is pretty notiable could it ever be consider evolution? All ancestors of A have the same gene as A and all decendants of B have the same genes as B. Wouldn't A and the ancestors be a pool and B and its decendants be a pool as well. Could that be consider evolution? Even if the change happen in a single generation?
No evolution does not happen like that.
"Hopeful Monsters" do not thrive in the gene pool.
Wouldn't A and the ancestors be a pool and B and its decendants be a pool as well
No. It is impossible that speciation happens in one generation. If an individual had a mutation so immense that it could not breed with its previous generation it could never breed and would be a dead-end
Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool.
Viviane well to find out if the paremeters are tune properly you need to test it agains the entire population. You might find out that with just some sample it covers all the bases but if you had the power and resources test all. I imagine the test would be done by computer automated and adding dynamically newborns. Again is a suggestion and I haven't though of everything that would be required plus is completely impossible to do it not just the logistics but we will never have all the data.
thanks cofty -- nice video, very helpful
cofty I agree with breeding but why not other genes? Thanks for the definition of Evolution I honestly had never looked at it with this detail.
On a side note I thought your original post was to share and educate. I didn't know I had to look carefully at what I type/response or I risk being accused of not thinking. If your purpose is to alienate people from posting I say good job.
atrapado - I think if you read back through the thread you will see just how patient and helpful me and others have been in trying to help you.
I never accused you of not thinking. I questioned whether you were really reading and thinking about the answers that had been offered to you.
For example, from page 3 of this thread...
"If there is a 'standard rabbit' the accolade denotes no more than the centre of a bell-shaped distribution of real, scurrying, leaping variable bunnies. And the distribution shifts with time. As generations go by there may gradually come a point, not clearly defined, when the norm of what we call rabbits will have departed so far as to deserve a different name. There is no permanent rabbitness, no essence of rabbit hanging in the sky, just populations of furry, long-eared, coprophagous, whisker-twitching individuals, showing a statistical distribution of variation in size, colour and proclivities"
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Chapter 2 "Dogs Cows and Cabbages" sub-heading "The Dead Hand of Plato".
cofty I haven't read that book and I notice that quote and thought about it but didn't know the details for the argument. For example he talks about a bell-shaped distribution. What is the criteria for this distribution curved that changed with generations? Did he used a sample of genes why not expand the variables to cover more so that the shift is included. Just like my DNA sample if you find a population that you consider humans but fails the filter then you modify the filter so that it will include that population as well(you don't say well a filter doesn't exits because I tried one). So the reason I didn't coment on that quote was because I am not familiar with it.
From this quote what I gather was that Dawkins is saying you cannot define the essence of rabbit based on this. I see no proof that you cannot define a rabbit just that his method didn't work. All I was trying to say was "sure we don't have a definition or a definition that we agree" but that doesn't proove that a definition doesn't exits or that someday we'll find or agree on one.
Maybe my worst ever post...
"just human, half of scientists are religious.... Anyone can become a scoentist, you just need evidence. You can cahsnge the world justhuman, go prove them wrong....Thats hoe science works..."
Apologies, I have typo disease. Just wanted to say great thread by Cofty and Viviane. Atrapado, these guys are sharing information that took them years to obtain and much effort. With respect, you are getting a free crash course into evolution, ask yourself what motive Cofty has to come here and promote evidence and reasoning? It isn't to alienate, that is contradictory.
I think that sometimes there is a clash between minds. Science is based on evidence and attack of science is usually based on ignorance. At best it is a based on better evidence, obtained scientifically.
When people attack a scientific, evidence based theory.....it is quite frustrating to watch, all you can do is refer them to sources and tell them the latest thinking. This is often interpreted as rude or as elitist, but in reality there is no easy way of saying 'you need to read and know more'.
As JW's we were given a cuddle and smile as we were fed the WT dogma. Science has no agenda, just facts. There is no nice way to sell it and I am glad of that. Most people dont like the idea of evolution or the big bang, it is less conforting than to have been hand moulded by s loving father figure, but we deal with evidence not comfort. Science is underestimated for the effort required to understsnd it too. It is very complex, even the evolution and science being discussed here is high school level, easily below age 14 science class room level. I didn't know it until I was 27 and it took much effort because I was vaccinated against evidence as a JW kid! But I can assure you, these are the ABC's of evolution and as you can appreciate it is complex stuff. Genesis 1:1 takes ten seconds to read and understand..... hence it was written. Evolution, genetics, biodiversity, bio-chemistry, geology and palaeontology are all required at a basic level to understand the basics of evolution.
Now imagine someone who can't even define evolution, questioning it. If someone really wants answers. The only question should be... how can I learn this theory? THEN question it all you like!
(But been as 97% of scientists don't question evolution it is unlikely you will....not because you are not able, but due to the undenisble evidence. By the way, a pew study in 2009 indicated that the 3% that rejected it were religous and there was a direct correlation to denying evolution and belief and weekly church attendance. Still that is not important, it is all about the evidence.)
It is like trying to convince someone that thearth is round, it is hard to say you are wromg without implying 'thats ridiculous', especially when they argue and argue.
So please take all this into considerstion, simply put,,there is no easy way to tell someone they are wrong and need to read more.... but by our actions, namely being here helping people to learn basic science, pointing them to resources such ss cofty's video, should say much about our motives.
atrapado, there is no perfect definition or gold standard for species of any kind. Thinking there is means you have not grasped the influences and end result of natural selection.
If the species is alive at a point in time...it has evolved successfully to its enviroment at that point in time... so by definitio is ideal for its enviroment at that point in time. That is as near to defining what a species should be as you can get. It is measured by nothing more than it being appropristely adapted to its environment.
Let me give a quick example. Let's say you want to claim that humans today are what a human should be, so we use a bell shaped curve to look at what the average human statistics are. Ok so if we did that and focused on one thing in paticular as an example. we would say that humans have round red blood cells (concave to be accurate). Because by far, most do.
With that in mind, here is an example of why that doesn't work. Red blood cells can by mutation, become sickle shaped, it leads to reduced life span and complications, but many people can and do have it and importantly survive beyond procreation ages. So it can be passe on. Sickle cellshaped red blood cells by chance offer a protrction against malaria as the pathogen can't attach to the cell when it is this shape.
Ok so humans right now, by enlarge have round red blood cells. If we change our environment, say the world gets warmer, more mosquitos and we throw in an epidemic of malaria. The population that will survive and do well and procreate more are the people with genes for sickle shaped red blood cells. Fast forward 150 years and take the bell shaped curve assesment AGAIN to assess what an average human is once more, and now a human has statiistically asickle shsped red blood cell, perfect for its enviroment.
So do you see that there is no gold standard for any species?
It is the enviroment that defines what is appropriate at that point in time, nothing more. Natural selection, specifically nature...dictates how best we should be at that time. But then that alone can't be used as a guide for all humans because the enviroment on earth alters hugely. Fror example in Africa, in regions of high malaria rates.... sickle cell humans are surving better! In the UK it exists largely due to migration, here it offers no advantage and causes lots of issues for these poor patients.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT ;)
Cofty it's got to be 2 or 3 a.m. where you are. What are you doing awake? And Snare, aren't you 'over there' too? Go to sleep guys!!!! This conversation can wait.
