|
|
#41
05-16-2007, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What about crossover?
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that so many talk only about mutation and ignore crossover? Crossover plays a more dramatic role in variation than mutation. D. [/ QUOTE ] I lump them into the same category. Also, chromosomal duplication, non-homologous recombination, so on. All of these are 'mutational' events, in that the product is different than either of the inputs. 
|
|
#42
05-16-2007, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
This approach has been considered.
Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg" The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal? Same concept applies to your theory.
|
|
#43
05-16-2007, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered. Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg" The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal? Same concept applies to your theory. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?
|
|
#44
05-16-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite. [/ QUOTE ] I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept. Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence? [/ QUOTE ] You don't apply probability to the existence of a God in general. (And if I have ever said otherwise I was using sloppy language). But you can apply probability to the existence of a God who sets aside the laws of physics to intervene on this Earth. You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all. Which the non gullible know is tiny. Whether it be Jeanne Dixon, Doyle Brunson, Uri Geller or God the perpetrater. If you want to talk about a God who sparked consciousness in humans or who will reward people after death probability can not be so obviously applied.
|
|
#45
05-16-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This approach has been considered. Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg" The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal? Same concept applies to your theory. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help? [/ QUOTE ] Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point? When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce? That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?) While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way?
|
|
#46
05-16-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This approach has been considered. Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg" The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal? Same concept applies to your theory. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help? [/ QUOTE ] Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point? When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce? That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?) While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way? [/ QUOTE ] No, I was answering this EXACT question, this EXACT general point. Whatever new species or animal you have in mind here...the first X never existed.
|
|
#47
05-16-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next?
There is always a "first" (insert whatever here) There was a first cell. There was a first amino acid. There was a first sentient being. There was a first primate. There was a first reptile. There was a first fish. By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist.
|
|
#48
05-16-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next? There is always a "first" (insert whatever here) There was a first cell. There was a first amino acid. [/ QUOTE ] Probably...maybe. [ QUOTE ] There was a first sentient being. There was a first primate. There was a first reptile. There was a first fish. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I do understand this is a tricky point, but your lack of imagination isn't something I'm too concerned with. [ QUOTE ] By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#50
05-16-2007, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next? There is always a "first" (insert whatever here) There was a first cell. There was a first amino acid. There was a first sentient being. There was a first primate. There was a first reptile. There was a first fish. By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist. [/ QUOTE ] Vhawk, here would be a good place for you to explain transitions, ring species, etc.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
