|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are seriously delusional if you think your little formula is any kind of answer to what I've been arguing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are seriously delusional if you think you understand anything of what I've been arguing. Well, I and everyone else reading your innumerable threads on this subject understand you to be claiming that evolution requires a loss of genetic diversity and that this depletion must necessarily bring evolution to a halt when the genetic diversity runs out. Because that is what you keep saying. If your argument is actually that carnivorous petunias are stealing your elbows, then you would be well advised to use different words from those you have hitherto been employing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are seriously delusional if you think your little formula is any kind of answer to what I've been arguing. Well, I and everyone else reading your innumerable threads on this subject understand that mutation increases genetic diversity. Because it does. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No it doesn't and if you understood the argument you'd know why it doesn't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: No it doesn't and if you understood the argument you'd know why it doesn't. Unfortunately Faith, reality trumps any argument. It does not matter whether or not anyone understands your argument when reality as been proving you wrong for billions of years. The mechanism that increases diversity is mutation.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No it doesn't and if you understood the argument you'd know why it doesn't. No amount of arguing that a process that by definition increases genetic diversity doesn't increase genetic diversity will stop it from increasing genetic diversity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
If the idea is to blame the mutations for the dogs health, let's be clear that the breeders in this case selected for extreme cranial changes and got the result they wanted. Right, mutations provided the variability and the breeders determined what variants were desirable. If you remember the picture of the dog skulls I posted a while back
the bull terrier is in the middle (B) from 1931 (Top), 1950 (Middle), and 1976 (Bottom). It shows that the changes occurred over a period of 45 years and were incremental. This is important because it shows this wasn't due to a single, large scale mutation but a series of shifts in expression.
This would not be the first instance, nor will it be the last one, in which breeders deliberately go for some specific traits and end up producing breeds with health issues. And not all, or even most of those compromised health results are the result of mutation. Another thing that I didn't want to bring up with Faith (but I think you can handle it ) is that often times a undesirable trait will hitchhike along with a desirable trait due to linkage (Jargon: linkage means that genes are located very close to one another on a chromosome and are inherited together) and then end up fixed in the breed. Sometimes these inherited disorders can be bred out by crossbreeding and then backcrossing until the normal allele is fixed in the breed.
quote: The challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited disease HBD Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Faith writes: So you've got increased MTDNA diversity, which is nothing but a bunch of meaningless mutations absolutely unrelated to the genetic diversity that is lost in the evolutionary scenarios I've been describing. I realize this is too absurd to be true but I have no other way of making sense of this. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Seeing something that you seem determined not to get isn't being obtuse. The simple point that you keep missing is that an increase followed by a reduction does not have to be an overall reduction. This point has been made again and again to you, and yet you have never made a valid case for an overall reduction. So getting angry, telling people that they don't understand or worse calling them "delusional" simply amounts to bullying. Again let me explain the general outline of the process as I see it: Additive and subtractive forces are in dynamic equilibrium. As the balance of the forces shift, so genetic diversity will rise or decline until a new balance point is reached. The cycle of speciation is as follows: 1) we start with a large population where overall diversity is relatively high - the additive processes are relatively strong (large population size) while drift is relatively weak, and selection is not especially strong. 2) A small sub-population is split off, weakening additive processes (small isolated population) with strengthen drift and often selection. This population diverges and becomes a new species. 3) The new population is successful and starts increasing in size altering the balance again (mutation becomes more important, drift starts to weaken, selection is very weak) 4) As the new species approaches the success of the ancestral population, so its genetic diversity will rise to the same level as the old. I know that you disagree with this scenario, but you have not offered any sound reason to reject it, and it is more consistent with the evidence we have than your views are. And yet you do not even seem to acknowledge it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Hardly a topic that we could do justice to without derailing the thread. Are you up for a Great Debate thread on the matter ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Faith writes: Of course if there are areas of reality that aren't subject to scientific testing because they have nothing to do with the physical world but another realm of reality altogether, and you've arbitrarily rejected them for simply being a different kind of reality, that's pretty irrational of you isn't it? There are no areas of reality that are beyond scientific testing. This is science's job. If you can show me a reality that is not being examined by science, I'll test it myself for you.
I inhabit an entirely different paradigm, Yes we know
so that whatever is true in them is always being subsumed under a Big Fat Lie that skews it all beyond any real scientific usefulness. The science in them would stand without the lie, but that would require some intricate epistemological surgery. It's not a single lie though is it Faith? If it was a single issue, it's vaguely possible that it could be wrong and if it was wrong it would be corrected - because all errors in science ultimately get corrected. It's actually multitudes of 'lies' in all independant scientific disciplines that all rather miraculously converge on a single 'truth'. So physics, astronomy geology and biology all provide supporting evidence for an old earth and none for a young earth. Are all the millions of scientists involved in a massive conspiracy to corrupt and lie about everything from Rocks to space travel? It's pure fantasy Faith, it's utterly impossible for you to be right and literally millions of man-years of cross-disciplinary, peer-reviewed science to be totally wrong in every aspect of its work. If it was wrong great chunks of our technology would not work. Even you at your deepest level of denial and delusion must know this.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No amount of arguing that a process that by definition increases genetic diversity doesn't increase genetic diversity will stop it from increasing genetic diversity. To get a new subspecies, species or breed requires the loss of genetic diversity. If it isn't lost or at least reduced, you don't get a subspecies, species or breed. In nature the purest way this occurs is by geographic isolation. Domestic breeders do it by intentional mating. An increase in genetic diversity in either case will blur the emerging phenotypes, and as long as reproductive isolation is maintained there is no reason to have an increase. The occasional mutation, assuming it gets expressed as a phenotype, is easily removed from the breed. But most won't get expressed as phenotypes. Mutations that do that are rather rare as I understand it. And most are something neither nature nor the domestic breeder would find helpful anyway. You get a breed or a new species by LOSS of genetic diversity. That's how it happens. If you don't want a breed you don't have to have one, you can have all the genetic diversity you like, but enough to make up for the loss required to bring out a new breed would destroy the breed entirely. If that's what you want as a breeder, you can have it, you just won't have your breed, you'll have something else. In nature if gene flow between populations continues while a population has at least partial reproductive isolation, you may get a recognizable breed, but reproductive isolation that prevents gene flow should bring out the most dramatic new phenotypes. In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all. You'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes. Possibly the blue wildebeest emerged from the black by some of the black simply getting separated from the parent black population for some number of generations while their collective new gene frequencies brought out the blueish coloring, the new body build and the new antler style. Some gene flow might not impede the process too much but the ideal condition, or at least the clearest condition to explain, is complete reproductive isolation for producing the new species of wildebeest. It's a very simple and obvious formula: losing genetic diversity is what gets a new subspecies in the wild or a breed in domesticity. There's no problem with this unless you lose a LOT of genetic diversity. And a new species/population such as the blue wildebeest, could in fact be stable for hundreds of years. This is all hypothetical, I'm talking about how it could have happened. Reality is usually messier, of course, involving continued gene flow for instance, but the trend that brings out new species is the LOSS of genetic diversity. If you have a large population with lots of genetic diversity and many viable mutations, it will be a motley collection of many phenotypes. It could only become a new species if selection or some kind of reproductive isolation favored a particular set of phenotypes out of the whole collection of phenotypes, over many generations, creating a new subpopulation with its own characteristics, perhaps even within the greater population. And that subpopulation will lose the genotypes for the NONfavored or unselected phenotypes, as those for the favored/selected come to characterize the new subpopulation. There is no way to get a new phenotypic presentation without such a loss. I really don't know if you are obtuse or willfully pretending to be. If pretending, that's understandable, of course, in a diehard evo who couldn't bear to find out the ToE is wrong and there is a God who constructed this biological pattern, because this is definitely a pattern that contradicts the ToE and shows that it could never work. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Instead of insulting people who disagree with you, perhaps you should try arguing for your claims. Especially:
quote: It's pretty unlikely that you'd get the exact mutations needed even to restore the lost phenotypic variations (of a typical case - phenotypic changes are not essential to speciation) let alone restore interfertility. And yet if we still have a phenotypically distinct population that does not interbreed with the parent population, then of course we have a new species. That should be obvious. So why would it be "obtuse" to reject your claim ? On the face of it, it is an obvious falsehood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PaulK writes: It's pretty unlikely that you'd get the exact mutations needed even to restore the lost phenotypic variations (of a typical case - phenotypic changes are not essential to speciation) let alone restore interfertility. In addition we have documented outwardly similar results and even lost and regained functions but where the mutations leading to the changes were entirely different than the original or even other visibly similar sub populations. One great example even discussed in this very thread are the desert pocket mice where the dark sub-populations are genetically different. Edited by jar, : fix attribution Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Please don't attribute my words to Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024