Degradation leads to adaptation and speciation.

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

:facepalm:

Extinction today is caused by human impact, not degradation of the genome. Once again, your prediction is wrong before you made it. You are starting with a faulty premise, which leads you to an extremely wrong conclusion.

What about the fossil record? The fossil record also shows more extinction than speciation

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans, the point is that extinction is more common than speciation weather if you remove humans from the equation or not.

No, it isn't - as you'd realise if you answered the questions I put to you and read the linked chapter and conclusion I repeated for you in this post above.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What about the fossil record? The fossil record also shows more extinction than speciation

In a private discussion with another user on this forum, we discussed your misunderstanding of extinction. We both agreed that you are basing this claim on your lack of understanding of the statement that 99% of all life on earth has gone extinct. That figure is true, but one cannot conclude from that figure that extinction is the norm. We know that life has been on earth for 3.5 billion years, which means there have been numerous life forms on earth. Thus, when a scientist says that 99% of all species on earth are now extinct, that is what one would expect since the earth is always changing and life has such a deep root in the past.

However, it appears that you think when a species goes extinct it is totally extinct. This could be the case, and is the case for mass extinction, but much of the time, we see species going extinct because they are replaced by later lineages of what are most likely their descendants.

To use an analogy, most of your family is dead; I would even say that 99% of them are dead. However, does that mean that your family is going extinct? No, it simply means that the amount of ancestor you had is far greater compared to the amount of family you have alive today. That does not mean your family is dying out.

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans...

Citation needed.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What about the fossil record? The fossil record also shows more extinction than speciation

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans, the point is that extinction is more common than speciation weather if you remove humans from the equation or not.

I know that sometimes dealing with everybody can overwhelming. But if you can I would ask you not to ignore my posts and actually address them, or make an effort to understand. Had you paid attention to my post you would have learned how obviously ridiculous this statement is. I taught I had made it pretty much clear, apparently not.

 

[dandan]

However, it appears that you think when a species goes extinct it is totally extinct. This could be the case, and is the case for mass extinction, but much of the time, we see species going extinct because they are replaced by later lineages of what are most likely their descendants.

To use an analogy, most of your family is dead; I would even say that 99% of them are dead. However, does that mean that your family is going extinct? No, it simply means that the amount of ancestor you had is far greater compared to the amount of family you have alive today. That does not mean your family is dying out.
.

Yes, I am taking that in to account, my point is that the majority of fossils represent evolutionary dead ends. With this I mean that the specie went extinct without evolving in to something else, an example of this would be the T-REX, they simply went extinct, they didn´t evolved in to a modern specie. Agree?

 

[dandan]

What about the fossil record? The fossil record also shows more extinction than speciation

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans, the point is that extinction is more common than speciation weather if you remove humans from the equation or not.

I know that sometimes dealing with everybody can overwhelming. But if you can I would ask you not to ignore my posts and actually address them, or make an effort to understand. Had you paid attention to my post you would have learned how obviously ridiculous this statement is. I taught I had made it pretty much clear, apparently not.

Don´t worry, even though I don´t answer to all comments, I do read them all. In my first reply I said that I would only answer to Marscydonia, I made an exception with he who is nobody because he made a valid point.

If you have said anything relevant I am sure “Mars” will eventually notice and he will ask me about your claims

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

However, it appears that you think when a species goes extinct it is totally extinct. This could be the case, and is the case for mass extinction, but much of the time, we see species going extinct because they are replaced by later lineages of what are most likely their descendants.

To use an analogy, most of your family is dead; I would even say that 99% of them are dead. However, does that mean that your family is going extinct? No, it simply means that the amount of ancestor you had is far greater compared to the amount of family you have alive today. That does not mean your family is dying out.
.

Yes, I am taking that in to account, my point is that the majority of fossils represent evolutionary dead ends. With this I mean that the specie went extinct without evolving in to something else, an example of this would be the T-REX, they simply went extinct, they didn´t evolved in to a modern specie. Agree?

This comes back to something you posted earlier:

This is the order of events

1 First you have a “Genomed” kind

2 Then you have degradation, the descendants of the kinds lose genetic material, each descendent loses a different portion of genes, therefore you have diversity

3 if this trend continues you have extinction, because too much genetic material would be lost

In other words in the long term degradation leads to extinction, but in the meanwhile you can have some diversity and speciation.
These would be my hypothetical time line:

4,000 years ago there where these genomed kinds
3,000 years ago, these genomed kinds started to deteriorate, and as a consequence diversity increased
2,000 years ago these kinds became too deteriorated and a trend toward extinction started,

Today we are still in this trend toward extinction.

This is why extinction is more common than speciation TODAY, but I provided reasons to think that things were different in the past… ¿How do you solve this problem?

From where are you getting these "4000/3000/2000 years"?

I have no doubt that these are arbitrary on your part.

You still have yet to address the mathematics questions I put to you earlier:

Your idea about "degradation" is what's wrong.

I asked this question of you in the onceforgivennowfree topic - I'll ask it again;

If, as you claim, dandan, the "(human) genome is losing 5% per generation", I have a couple of mathematics questions for you:

1) How many generations before there isn't enough of our genome left to be classed as "human"? (In other words, how long before we're no longer the "special kind");
2) How many generations before there isn't enough genome left for a viable organism?

Also, with regards to your claim about "extinctions exceeding speciation", did you not read my earlier post, where I clearly quoted the conclusions from a book's chapter on this?

Please do the calculations for humans, based on your claim from a paper you earlier cited as "proof" of "deterioration" of the genome.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

1 First you have a “Genomed” kind

2 Then you have degradation, the descendants of the kinds lose genetic material, each descendent loses a different portion of genes, therefore you have diversity

3 if this trend continues you have extinction, because too much genetic material would be lost

In other words in the long term degradation leads to extinction, but in the meanwhile you can have some diversity and speciation.
These would be my hypothetical time line:

4,000 years ago there where these genomed kinds
3,000 years ago, these genomed kinds started to deteriorate, and as a consequence diversity increased
2,000 years ago these kinds became too deteriorated and a trend toward extinction started,

Today we are still in this trend toward extinction.

This is why extinction is more common than speciation TODAY, but I provided reasons to think that things were different in the past… ¿How do you solve this problem?

You ask again, how do we solve this problem but what exactly is the problem for the theory of evolution? That extinction happens more frequently TODAY than it did in the past? Like it has been pointed out, extinction TODAY is mostly caused by the human impact on ecosystems.

As for the rest of your comment, I understand that your claim of extinction being more common than speciation is that your claim applies to TODAY. Can you precise when does TODAY starts exactly? I am sure you did not mean June 10.

So as per your trend claim, we should use 2,000 years ago as the date extinction started or did were there extinctions prior to this date? Should we infer that between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, the earth experienced a massive amount of speciation as we currently have a lot more species than there were "kinds" on the ark? Then extinction started 2,000 but when exactly did extinction became more frequent than speciation?

I want to know because the other dates from your hypothetical timeline also seem as equally arbitrary. Especially since your hypothetical timeline contradicts the general scriptural interpretation of creationists.

How did you obtain these number? What started the deteriorations 3,000 years ago, what is the cause that started genomes to undergo deterioration?

If the human genome loses 5% per generation and the loss started 3,000 years ago, are you sure you do not want to revise these numbers?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

However, it appears that you think when a species goes extinct it is totally extinct. This could be the case, and is the case for mass extinction, but much of the time, we see species going extinct because they are replaced by later lineages of what are most likely their descendants.

To use an analogy, most of your family is dead; I would even say that 99% of them are dead. However, does that mean that your family is going extinct? No, it simply means that the amount of ancestor you had is far greater compared to the amount of family you have alive today. That does not mean your family is dying out.

Yes, I am taking that in to account, my point is that the majority of fossils represent evolutionary dead ends. With this I mean that the specie went extinct without evolving in to something else, an example of this would be the T-REX, they simply went extinct, they didn´t evolved in to a modern specie. Agree?

I agree, and I covered that when I talked about mass extinctions. Please start reading for comprehension. However, do you understand the analogy I made?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans...

Citation needed.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Don´t worry, even though I don´t answer to all comments, I do read them all. In my first reply I said that I would only answer to Marscydonia, I made an exception with he who is nobody because he made a valid point.

If you have said anything relevant I am sure “Mars” will eventually notice and he will ask me about your claims

Excuse me? I would say it is more relevant than anything else anybody else has said so far. Because they are very basic, very fulcral points, and the fact that you don't get it leads you to make wrong conclusions, and if you got it, you would pretty much answer every question you have made in this topic for yourself.
It may look deceivingly simple, but it is there for a reason. So please, make an effort.

 

[dandan]

MARS

As for the rest of your comment, I understand that your claim of extinction being more common than speciation is that your claim applies to TODAY. Can you precise when does TODAY starts exactly? I am sure you did not mean June 10.

The reason why I can state that extinction is more frequent than speciation today (but not in the past) is because I am starting with “more genomed”
Kinds.

As an evolutionists you can´t make that assumption, supposedly we all evolved from a “less genomed” molecule.

There are 3 independent lines of evidence that suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation.

1 the fact that this is true today (even if you remove humans from the equation)

2 the fact that the fossil record shows it

3 the fact that fitness is decaying at a 5% rate, as peer reviewed sources conclude

How do you explain all these 3 facts from an evolutionary point of view?

Yes my dates where arbitrary, I simply tried to explain my point.

I don´t know exactly when did speciation became more rare than extinction.

Point 1 can be explained with “more genomed kinds”
Point 2 can be explained with a global flood that killed most of the animals
Point 3 is not a problem for a young earhter,

How do you explain these 3 facts?

BTW what positive evidence can you show that proves that speciation is more frequent than extinction?

 

[dandan]

I agree, and I covered that when I talked about mass extinctions. Please start reading for comprehension. However, do you understand the analogy I made?

Yes I understood your analogy, the thing is that most fossils represent animals that are now extent without “evolving” in to something else. Meaning that extinction is more frequent than speciation in the fossil record.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I agree, and I covered that when I talked about mass extinctions. Please start reading for comprehension. However, do you understand the analogy I made?

Yes I understood your analogy, the thing is that most fossils represent animals that are now extent without “evolving” in to something else. Meaning that extinction is more frequent than speciation in the fossil record.

:facepalm:

You seem to be confusing the fact that everything dies, with extinction being common. Just because everything dies, does not mean that life forms do not reproduce and leave behind offspring before they die. Furthermore, if you truly understand my analogy, you would not be stating such non-sense still. Again, is it okay to conclude that your family is going extinct because 99% of your family is dead? We already know that the fossil record is incomplete and that not all lineages lead to surviving members. However, if that being the case, you seem to be forgetting about the numerous transitional life forms we have found in the fossil record.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans...

Citation needed.

 

[Dragan Glas]

MARS

As for the rest of your comment, I understand that your claim of extinction being more common than speciation is that your claim applies to TODAY. Can you precise when does TODAY starts exactly? I am sure you did not mean June 10.

The reason why I can state that extinction is more frequent than speciation today (but not in the past) is because I am starting with “more genomed”
Kinds.

As an evolutionists you can´t make that assumption, supposedly we all evolved from a “less genomed” molecule.

There are 3 independent lines of evidence that suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation.

1 the fact that this is true today (even if you remove humans from the equation)

2 the fact that the fossil record shows it

3 the fact that fitness is decaying at a 5% rate, as peer reviewed sources conclude

How do you explain all these 3 facts from an evolutionary point of view?

Yes my dates where arbitrary, I simply tried to explain my point.

I don´t know exactly when did speciation became more rare than extinction.

Point 1 can be explained with “more genomed kinds”
Point 2 can be explained with a global flood that killed most of the animals
Point 3 is not a problem for a young earhter,

How do you explain these 3 facts?

BTW what positive evidence can you show that proves that speciation is more frequent than extinction?

You've now changed what you said in point 3 from what you said when you originally cited that paper: you said that the genome was deteriorating at 5% per generation.

These are not the same!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Yes I understood your analogy, the thing is that most fossils represent animals that are now extent without “evolving” in to something else. Meaning that extinction is more frequent than speciation in the fossil record.

No you haven't got it. Because species can not go extinct if they don't exist in the first place. The fact that they have gone extinct without evolving into something else is irrelevant, because those species that have gone extinct existed, and some population must have evolved into that extinct species so it could exist and then become extinct.
So if you count 1 for extinction of a species X that hasn't left and daughter species you must not forget to count 1 for when species W speciated into species X.
Now if we count the species that haven't gone extinct but simply adapted into more modern forms, then is an extra 1 for speciation.
With this simply arithmetic its mathematically impossible that there are more extinction than there are speciations, given that species exist where none did before.
The only way that you could get more extinctions than speciation is if you have a multiple species X going extinct without X having a parent species, i.e. X hasn't evolved.
So what you are proposing is that those species in the fossil record didn't evolved, they just existed. So in this circumstance I would have to ask which of the species in the fossil record do you think hasn't evolved into that species before going extinct?
Because (as you might have guessed) we don't think that such a specie exist, and that all life on earth share a common ancestor with very humble beginnings, and that for any species that you could possibly name we could name another parent species.

So you can how it looks problematic to just assume things like "extinctions are more common than speciation" just because they appear obvious? Sorry, obvious is wrong.

But its is a good start. If you can muster the time, could you address the question of what do you mean by "degradation" and how do you measure (from my original question how do you contrast function and genome, and I have seen creationists argue one way and the other, the consequences of that I will explain), as well as how do you know that the examples of speciation that you provided were in fact caused by "degredation" instead of the opposite of that?
And this is even before granting you allot of your premises, which after going trough this taught process you will understand why your conclusion was wrong.

 

[dandan]

he-who isnobody

You seem to be confusing the fact that everything dies, with extinction being common. Just because everything dies, does not mean that life forms do not reproduce and leave behind offspring before they die. Furthermore, if you truly understand my analogy, you would not be stating such non-sense still. Again, is it okay to conclude that your family is going extinct because 99% of your family is dead? We already know that the fossil record is incomplete and that not all lineages lead to surviving members. However, if that being the case, you seem to be forgetting about the numerous transitional life forms we have found in the fossil record.

Even if we assume that every single alleged transitional form is somebodies direct ancestor, it is still a fact that most fossils are evolutionary dead ends. Agree?

Like the T-REX most organisms went extinct before they had any children.(pr before they evovled)

For example (as an analogy) if we establish that most people die before reproduction, it would follow logically that there were more people in the past, therefore any model that starts with few people would be wrong. In a similar way if most animals go extinct before they evolve in to something else, it follows that life was more diverse in the past, and any model that starts with 1 or few ancestral species is wrong.

Do you honestly deny the fact that most reported speciation events where caused by humans?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

he-who isnobody

You seem to be confusing the fact that everything dies, with extinction being common. Just because everything dies, does not mean that life forms do not reproduce and leave behind offspring before they die. Furthermore, if you truly understand my analogy, you would not be stating such non-sense still. Again, is it okay to conclude that your family is going extinct because 99% of your family is dead? We already know that the fossil record is incomplete and that not all lineages lead to surviving members. However, if that being the case, you seem to be forgetting about the numerous transitional life forms we have found in the fossil record.

Even if we assume that every single alleged transitional form is somebodies direct ancestor, it is still a fact that most fossils are evolutionary dead ends. Agree?

Like the T-REX most organisms went extinct before they had any children.(pr before they evovled)

You're arguing that a corpse in a cemetery is evidence that the person didn't have descendants,

For example (as an analogy) if we establish that most people die before reproduction, it would follow logically that there were more people in the past, therefore any model that starts with few people would be wrong. In a similar way if most animals go extinct before they evolve in to something else, it follows that life was more diverse in the past, and any model that starts with 1 or few ancestral species is wrong.

Do you honestly deny the fact that most reported speciation events where caused by humans?

Yes - most speciation events were not caused by humans.

Why?

The biggest extinction events - where most of life on Earth was wiped out - occurred when humans (nor their ancestors) weren't even around!

Yet look at the diversity of life today.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

dandan,
Keep ignoring my points, and keep making the exact same mistakes that I have told you not to, keep saying the same wrong shit over and over again until it eventually becomes true.
You will get there.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he-who isnobody

You seem to be confusing the fact that everything dies, with extinction being common. Just because everything dies, does not mean that life forms do not reproduce and leave behind offspring before they die. Furthermore, if you truly understand my analogy, you would not be stating such non-sense still. Again, is it okay to conclude that your family is going extinct because 99% of your family is dead? We already know that the fossil record is incomplete and that not all lineages lead to surviving members. However, if that being the case, you seem to be forgetting about the numerous transitional life forms we have found in the fossil record.

Even if we assume that every single alleged transitional form is somebodies direct ancestor, it is still a fact that most fossils are evolutionary dead ends. Agree?

Yes.

Like the T-REX most organisms went extinct before they had any children.(pr before they evovled)

For example (as an analogy) if we establish that most people die before reproduction, it would follow logically that there were more people in the past, therefore any model that starts with few people would be wrong. In a similar way if most animals go extinct before they evolve in to something else, it follows that life was more diverse in the past, and any model that starts with 1 or few ancestral species is wrong.

No, it would not. In fact, for most of human history, most humans died before they were able to reproduce. All it takes is one family (mother and father) to produce three or more offspring that also reproduce to have a population grow. If a family has seven kids and four of them die, but the other three live to produce families, that means the population is growing even though most of the offspring died off. Thus, you are wrong to assert,” …it follows that life was more diverse in the past…” based of the fact that everything dies. Furthermore, it only takes a family to produce two offspring to keep a population stable.

Do you honestly deny the fact that most reported speciation events where caused by humans?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans...

Citation needed.

 

[Inferno]

No, it would not. In fact, for most of human history, most humans died before they were able to reproduce. All it takes is one family (mother and father) to produce three or more offspring that also reproduce to have a population grow. If a family has seven kids and four of them die, but the other three live to produce families, that means the population is growing even though most of the offspring died off. Thus, you are wrong to assert,” …it follows that life was more diverse in the past…” based of the fact that everything dies. Furthermore, it only takes a family to produce two offspring to keep a population stable.

Technically, that's not quite correct. It actually takes a family 2.1 offspring (that's an average, of course) to keep the population stable. It would be correct to say that "it takes a family two surviving and sexually reproductive offspring to keep a population stable" because that's what the total fertility rate of 2.1 means.

Also, geographers generally speak about the woman reproducing, not about families. I don't know why, it's a convention, but there you go.

But those are mere technicalities, the rest stands.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No, it would not. In fact, for most of human history, most humans died before they were able to reproduce. All it takes is one family (mother and father) to produce three or more offspring that also reproduce to have a population grow. If a family has seven kids and four of them die, but the other three live to produce families, that means the population is growing even though most of the offspring died off. Thus, you are wrong to assert,” …it follows that life was more diverse in the past…” based of the fact that everything dies. Furthermore, it only takes a family to produce two offspring to keep a population stable.

Technically, that's not quite correct. It actually takes a family 2.1 offspring (that's an average, of course) to keep the population stable. It would be correct to say that "it takes a family two surviving and sexually reproductive offspring to keep a population stable" because that's what the total fertility rate of 2.1 means.

Indeed - in even simpler terms, you only need for births to equal deaths to maintain a stable population.

Also, geographers generally speak about the woman reproducing, not about families. I don't know why, it's a convention, but there you go.

But those are mere technicalities, the rest stands.

The reason they speak about the woman reproducing, rather than families, is that you don't need a family - just the proverbial "single mother". In fact, families, as such, don't reproduce - just individuals, most obviously women.

Kindest regards,

James