[__ Science __ ] Instinct, by design or developed coincidence

[brother Paul]

Our behavior is mostly not in our genes, but in our learning.

Genomes don't change, although gene expression is often mediated by environment. For example, many enzymes have regulators that keep the gene for the enzyme turned off unless the specific substrate is actually present.

First I am glad you said MOSTLY...

So IF "genomes don't change", THEN old world monkey genomes, never changed to become ape genomes, which allegedly changed to become human genomes (when taken to its logical conclusion). Interesting!

 

[Barbarian]

First I am glad you said MOSTLY...

So IF "genomes don't change",

In individual organisms. Population genomes (sum of all genomes in a population) are constantly changing, per Hardy-Weinberg.

THEN

old world monkey genomes, never changed to become ape genomes, which allegedly changed to become human genomes (when taken to its logical conclusion). Interesting!

See above. While you're stuck with the genes you had at birth, a population experiences constant change in genome.

 

[brother Paul]

In individual organisms. Population genomes (sum of all genomes in a population) are constantly changing, per Hardy-Weinberg.



See above. While you're stuck with the genes you had at birth, a population experiences constant change in genome.

yes, a population made up of individuals.

According to the Hardy-Weinberg theorum changes to individuals in a population (though inheritance and natural selection) are effected by mate choice (allele transmission). genetic drift, mutations, and more. Therefore individual genomes do in fact change, but nothing in these "in population" changes indicate changing the genome so much that the genome of one species (using the standard acceptable definition) turns into the genome of a totally different species but does support the production of variety of that population.

So in an INDIVIDUAL the genome from birth does not change significantly, or in any way that produces anatomical or physiological transformations.

 

[Barbarian]

According to the Hardy-Weinberg theorum changes to individuals in a population (though inheritance and natural selection) are effected by mate choice (allele transmission). genetic drift, mutations, and more.

Because Hardy-Weinberg assumes no selective pressure, the predicted result happens only when you have a well-adapted population in a stable environment. Precisely when stasis is favored over evolution. When the predicted result is not obtained, it indicates selective pressure, and therefore evolution.

Therefore individual genomes do in fact change, but nothing in these "in population" changes indicate changing the genome so much that the genome of one species (using the standard acceptable definition) turns into the genome of a totally different species but does support the production of variety of that population.

For example, the disruptive selection leading to two separate populations of the hawthorn maggot fly, was caused by the introduction of apple trees to North America. The resulting divergence led to a hawthorn population and an apple population. Because of the developmental timing of the two fruits, the populations are now effectively isolated reproductively, and are incipient species (or separate species) at this time. The assortment of alleles would not fit Hardy-Weinberg in this case.

So in an INDIVIDUAL the genome from birth does not change significantly, or in any way that produces anatomical or physiological transformations.

Right. The source of change is in mutations and recombination of new alleles in the population. Somatic mutations are not passed on. Only mutations in eggs and sperm introduce new alleles to the population.

 

[brother Paul]

The resulting divergence led to a hawthorn population and an apple population. Because of the developmental timing of the two fruits, the populations are now effectively isolated reproductively, and are incipient species (or separate species) at this time.

They're still both hawthorns (as I said variety of the same creature). They even most likely can mate and reproduce although choose not to. Like Lions and Tigers which we now know to be different varieties not different species. But neither were once reptiles or birds (or dogs for that matter). Nothing indicates such a transformation (distinctly different genomes) only variety.

 

[Barbarian]

The resulting divergence led to a hawthorn population and an apple population. Because of the developmental timing of the two fruits, the populations are now effectively isolated reproductively, and are incipient species (or separate species) at this time.

They're still both hawthorns (as I said variety of the same creature). They even most likely can mate and reproduce although choose not to.

Unlikely, since their developmental timing is now different. Just as northern leopard frogs can no longer reproduce with southern leopard frogs, the timing makes them mutually infertile. The hawthorne flies and apple flies are right on the edge macroevolutionary change.

Macroevolution, remember, is change above the level of species.

Like Lions and Tigers which we now know to be different varieties not different species.

Many different species can still be produced in captivity. But in doesn't happen in the wild because "ligers"can't survive in the wild, and lions and tigers don't care to reproduce in the wild. Polar bears evolved perhaps 10,000 years ago, and they are still close enough to brown bears to produce viable offspring in the wild. In fact, as warming procedes, they've been coming ashore and doing that.

But neither were once reptiles or birds (or dogs for that matter).

That argument says that a man can walk a hundred yards, but he can't walk a hundred miles. There's no barrier to reptiles evolving into mammals. In fact, we have all sorts of transitionals, including a few like the platypus that are still alive, that demonstrate the fact.

Nothing indicates such a transformation (distinctly different genomes) only variety.

In fact, reptiles and mammals show closer genetic and biochemical affinities than either show to fish. Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

 

[brother Paul]

Yes they (lions and tigers) do not care to (but can). Also similarity (even in the genome) does not necessarily equal lineage (can be interpreted to implicate design).

 

[Barbarian]

Yes they (lions and tigers) do not care to (but can).

Reproductive isolation is speciation. Closely related species can, in some cases, still reproduce under special circumstances. Darwin pointed out that if evolution was a fact, such things would have to exist as speciation proceeds. This is a problem for creationism, which supposes nice boundaries between taxa, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage.

Hence I look at individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of the highest importance for us, as being the first steps towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works on natural history. And I look at varieties which are in any degree more distinct and permanent, as steps towards more strongly-marked and permanent varieties; and at the latter, as leading to sub-species, and then to species. The passage from one stage of difference to another may, in many cases, be the simple result of the nature of the organism and of the different physical conditions to which it has long been exposed; but with respect to the more important and adaptive characters, the passage from one stage of difference to another may be safely attributed to the cumulative action of natural selection, hereafter to be explained, and to the effects of the increased use or disuse of parts. A well-marked variety may therefore be called an incipient species; but whether this belief is justifiable must be judged by the weight of the various facts and considerations to be given throughout this work...Species very closely allied to other species apparently have restricted ranges. In all these respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter II, Variation Under Nature

Also similarity (even in the genome) does not necessarily equal lineage

We can test that by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent, and by comparing genomes of organisms that are similar, in "design" like sharks and dolphins. Turns out, genomes indicate lineage.

 

[brother Paul]

Reproductive isolation is speciation. Closely related species can, in some cases, still reproduce under special circumstances. Darwin pointed out that if evolution was a fact, such things would have to exist as speciation proceeds. This is a problem for creationism, which supposes nice boundaries between taxa, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage.

Hence I look at individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of the highest importance for us, as being the first steps towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works on natural history. And I look at varieties which are in any degree more distinct and permanent, as steps towards more strongly-marked and permanent varieties; and at the latter, as leading to sub-species, and then to species. The passage from one stage of difference to another may, in many cases, be the simple result of the nature of the organism and of the different physical conditions to which it has long been exposed; but with respect to the more important and adaptive characters, the passage from one stage of difference to another may be safely attributed to the cumulative action of natural selection, hereafter to be explained, and to the effects of the increased use or disuse of parts. A well-marked variety may therefore be called an incipient species; but whether this belief is justifiable must be judged by the weight of the various facts and considerations to be given throughout this work...Species very closely allied to other species apparently have restricted ranges. In all these respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter II, Variation Under Nature



We can test that by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent, and by comparing genomes of organisms that are similar, in "design" like sharks and dolphins. Turns out, genomes indicate lineage.

"We can test that by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent, and by comparing genomes of organisms that are similar, in "design" like sharks and dolphins. Turns out, genomes indicate lineage."

Genomes indicate lineage from parents to offspring within species only. We assume "known descent" (being not really known) and then we interpret the evidence to support our presupposition (expectancy bias), often falling on the 'ancestor of the gaps' default when we cannot point to actual examples.

 

[Razeontherock]

Macroevolution, remember, is change above the level of species.

No, that is not at all an acceptable definition. It's meaningless. It still speaks of variation within kind, which is the only thing that's ever been observed.

In order to count as "science," it has to be observed. Something about being repeatable comes to mind, too. You have none of the above; therefore, calling it science is a sham.

It's interesting, and it becomes more plausible as evidence is gathered and filtered. That's as far as this goes.

 

[Razeontherock]

Yes they (lions and tigers) do not care to (but can). Also similarity (even in the genome) does not necessarily equal lineage (can be interpreted to implicate design).

But redefinition of terms is so much easier, and minds incapable of critical thought are so easily preyed upon!

 

[brother Paul]

But redefinition of terms is so much easier, and minds incapable of critical thought are so easily preyed upon!

I find it very amusing that mostly only Evolutionary Biologists, Politicians, and when possible, lawyers are the only groups that always default to redefining terms when the truth commonly understood poses a threat to their presuppositions. This is a well known technique among those professional rhetoricians trying to shape the public opinion (with an underlying motive).

 

[Razeontherock]

Turns out, genomes indicate lineage.

Somehow, my quote of this and my response to it doesn't seem to have gone up. Oh well, it gets boring knocking about such easily disproven notions

 

[chessman]

I find it very amusing that mostly only Evolutionary Biologists, Politicians, and when possible, lawyers are the only groups that always default to redefining terms when the truth commonly understood poses a threat to their presuppositions. This is a well known technique among those professional rhetoricians trying to shape the public opinion (with an underlying motive).

Yep. And the evolutionists got off to a good start at using this technique

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species-

​

Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long horns, and he will laugh you to scorn.

​

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species,

And what’s really effective in swaying opinions is to switch back/forth between differing definitions mid sentence.

Darwin wrote the book about a theory of the origin of ‘species’ yet he did not even know how to demarcate ‘species’. Different breeds (naturally or artificially bred) does not mean different ‘species’ relative to the Biblical creation account. Species does not mean kinds (never has, never will). Kinds are what the Biblical accoount mentions.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind: cattle and moving things, and wild animals according to their kind.” And it was so.​

Genesis 1:24 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis 1:24&version=LEB

The hawthorne flies and apple flies are right on the edge macroevolutionary change.

Is either about to become something other than a kind of insect?

 

[Barbarian]

And what’s really effective in swaying opinions is to switch back/forth between differing definitions mid sentence.

Less than you suppose it is. Here's an example of one attempt:

(Barbarian points out incipient speciation between two populations of flies)

Attempt to switch back/forth between differing definitions mid sentence)

Is either about to become something other than a kind of insect?

Nice try. But as you know, the point was to show how speciation occurs. See how ineffective that creationist technique is?

Darwin wrote the book about a theory of the origin of ‘species’ yet he did not even know how to demarcate ‘species’.

Yes, that's a continuing problem for creationism. As Darwin pointed out, if evolution is true, there should be many, many cases of forms that are difficult to determine whether they are one species or several. If creationism were true, there would be nice, neat categories.

As you see, scripture is consistent with evolution:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind: cattle and moving things, and wild animals according to their kind.” And it was so.

Many creationists also accept that God did create living things, but they don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[Barbarian]

No, that is not at all an acceptable definition.

It's what the word means. If you must invent your own definitions of words to make your case, that's a pretty good hint for you,isn't it?

In order to count as "science," it has to be observed.

Nope. The story that we can't investigate anything we didn't personally observe, is obviously false.

Something about being repeatable comes to mind, too.

Yep. For example the discovery that advanced theropod dinosaurs had feathers and avian respiratory systems has been repeatedly confirmed.

You have none of the above

As you now realize, we do. It's why real scientists accept the fact of evolution.