Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 851 (552188)
03-27-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-27-2010 3:14 AM


Re: Rahvin 2 part 3
Faith writes:
I’m simply repeating the FACT that selection and isolation, NOT MUTATION, are what bring about the new phenotype that characterizes a whole new population.
Faith, as long you continue to assert that mutation plays no role in speciation there will be no peace for you in this thread. People would not find it outrageous to argue that changing allele frequencies and permutational recombinations of alleles are a more significant factor over mutation in speciation. That would actually be a very interesting discussion. But to just declare that mutations have no role at all is once again to simply deny the real world, and assertions denying what is obviously true tend to draw many responses.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 3:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:52 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 851 (552204)
03-27-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-27-2010 1:46 AM


basics
Hi Faith,
Give me time to get to it and I'll EXPLAIN why you continue to get varieties, AND explain the difference between that and genetic variability which has obviously escaped you.
Curiously, I suspect that you will have extreme difficulty showing this for one simple reason:
variety ==== genetic variability
genetic variability ==== variety
You can't have one without the other.
BTW - when you reply to one person you can filter all their messages with the "____ posts only" link under the avatar and using right click to open reply to in another window. That may cut down on your message overload issue.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : hint

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 2:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 78 of 851 (552223)
03-27-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
03-27-2010 7:49 AM


MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
I'm up to message 21, RAZD's first and was about to start there but I think I'm going to try to reorient this thread a bit at this point instead.
I understand why mutation and other sources of variation keep being brought up. Of course, because I'm trying to prove they are rendered GENETICALLY null in the ultimate playing out of evolution. I'm trying to PROVE this, I'm not merely asserting it, Percy. I'm NOT pursuing the various SOURCES of variation, such as recombination versus mutation, my focus is on the processes which SELECT AND ISOLATE. I should probably avoid pursuing all discussion about the sources of variation because it really is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.
BECAUSE evolutionists naturally automatically think in terms that include both selection and genetic increase, obviously I have my work cut out for me and the odds of succeeding at getting any of this across are far from good, but to me it's worth a try.
When Dawkins describes evolution by natural selection he speaks as if there were a simple progression from one form to another, as if selection and isolation didn't reduce genetic diversity. It's not that he doesn't KNOW that genetic diversity is reduced, he simply ASSUMES that mutation and other sources of variation overcome it so he doesn't take it into account. He brings out all kinds of interesting biological adaptations as if they demonstrate this open-ended progression that he is assuming, whereas all they actually demonstrate is the amount of normal adaptation that can occur on the way to genetic depletion. He constructs his little computer biomorphs as if there were none of the REAL effects of natural selection at all, merely change building on change.
If you look only at the phenotype that's the way it LOOKS. If you look at the various ring species, you see series of populations characterized by interesting changes in the phenotype from each to the next. The reason these changes could occur is that each new population was formed from a small complement of alleles taken from the previous population, leaving behind other alleles that would have competed with the new emerging phenotype. You need reproductive isolation for a new phenotype to develop.
You can get blended versions if there is some gene flow but the picture of what happens is clearer if there is complete reproductive isolation. You all know this, but somehow you forget that reduced genetic diversity must be the result of this scenario and that if you increase the diversity you simply interfere with the development of a new phenotype.
Yet you all talk about INCREASING the genetic diversity after it's been decreased, claiming this is normal. Not only does it not happen, but if it did happen you wouldn't be getting these new phenotypes. You NEED the reduced genetic diversity for these to emerge.
By the time the last in a series of ring species is formed the genetic diversity ought to be quite reduced from that of the first population, and the fact that first and last populations can usually not interbreed is an indication that that is probably the case. This COULD be studied, but it OUGHT to be logically proved.
If mutations or gene flow or any other source of variation kept intruding on this process you would not get these clear established phenotypes.
I know that even in saying all this I'm up against your assumption that mutation is going on all the time and IS contributing to the construction of new varieties. I do believe that is just an assumption, that the reality is that phenotypes require the elimination of alleles for other phenotypes. Maybe some of the alleles in the new phenotype were originally mutations, that could be, but when a new population is coming to be characterized by this phenotype it can only happen by leaving behind competing alleles, mutation-originated or not.
Think about dogs again, domestic breeding. You keep saying that after selection reduces genetic diversity new mutations come in and increase the variability again. In breeding that would produce nothing but chaos, you'd no longer have the breed, you'd start getting blurry versions of it. To hold onto a good breed REQUIRES that there be no interference from "foreign" alleles. The entrance of new alleles is a BAD thing for domestic breeding, you don't want it.
But you all talk about that's what must happen in NATURAL selection as if it were a good thing. There too you simply destroy any new phenotype or "breed" that happens to emerge in nature by the addition of mutations or any other source of genetic input such as recombination, gene flow etc.
BUT doesn't the theory of evolution say that evolution occurs in the direction new phenotypes are being formed? Doesn't it imply evolution builds upon any line that is producing new phenotypes?
Doesn't it imply that the cutting edge of evolution is at the end of a series of ring species, or at any point of speciation, or --back to domestic breeding-- where you have come up with a good new breed? Isn't that the direction evolution is supposed to move in? Isn't that where it's supposed to be open ended? Where the CHANGE is happening?
But the fact is that in all these instances, where the change IS happening, where phenotypes ARE being formed, where speciation has occurred, where a new breed has developed, that is exactly precisely where evolution comes to a halt. All along the line in such a progression of phenotypes genetic diversity will be reducing. When you get to speciation it can be quite radically reduced. Some species have a great many fixed loci. This is the NATURAL end result of the processes of selection and isolation.
Oh there may be PLENTY of genetic diversity left in the parent populations that were left behind by the evolving subpopulations. BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING. Where evolution is happening you are getting progressive loss of genetic diversity and it COULDN"T BE ANY OTHER WAY. You simply do NOT get a new phenotype, a new variation, a new breed of dog, without losing genetic options.
Now I know you are all mentally throwing tons of mutations into this description as you read it. You think of evolution as being open-ended, and despite your KNOWING that genetic diversity is reduced by selection and isolation the reality of it hasn't been allowed to alter your assumptions. You keep these ideas in separate mental compartments.
So you are throwing new mutations at these genetically depleted new species, not recognizing that the very existence of the new species requires the genetic depletion and if you add mutations you only destroy the species and evolution itself.
No, there IS a natural end to the processes of evolution because to get new varieties (phenotypes) you have to reduce genetic options.
Oh we'll go on fighting of course, but we're only going to be repeating ourselves in one way or another I'm sure. I'll go back and respond to the posts in order as I planned to do. I'll try to pare down my answers to cut down on the repetitiousness.
And one other thing. I know what I'm saying is true for dogs and cats and humans and guinea pigs and giraffes and mice. I don't know how true it may be for fruit flies, bacteria, viruses and plants, so there's no point in using them in this argument. It IS true for dogs et. al.
Thanks.
ONE MORE THING: Language is not precise enough for the clarity that is needed in this kind of discussion. I may be using terms in a way you wouldn't use them. I wrote this all off the top of my head and probably didn't get it said particularly well. I may be misspeaking here and there even on my own terms and muddying the message myself. Experts are going to use terminology in a way laypeople wouldn't. Etc. etc. etc. Please before rushing in to object to this or that in what I've said here think through the possibility that what you think I'm saying may not be what I think I'm saying. It may help cut down on unnecessary confusion. The topic is difficult enough without that.
Thanks
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 7:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 03-27-2010 2:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2010 2:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2010 3:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 3:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 1:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2010 6:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 79 of 851 (552226)
03-27-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-27-2010 1:52 PM


Re: MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
First, I'll comment that it won't bother me if you choose not to reply to my posts. I do hope you at least read them.
A second comment: the argument you are making is similar to that made by Fred Hoyle
Faith writes:
By the time the last in a series of ring species is formed the genetic diversity ought to be quite reduced from that of the first population, and the fact that first and last populations can usually not interbreed is an indication that that is probably the case. This COULD be studied, but it OUGHT to be logically proved.
I am confused about what you are saying there. I always thought that the thing about ring species was that there is no "last in a series". And I'm not sure that it is necessarily true that different species in the ring cannot interbreed - what makes them separate species is that they do not interbreed, which is different from saying that they cannot interbreed.
Another point about ring species, is that the different species live in slightly different environments. Presumably there is still selection going on, due to these different environments. It seems entirely possible that different species in the ring could all have the same alleles present in the population, but just with different probability distributions. That is, some alleles might be common in one species in the ring, and rare in another. The different probability distributions could be maintained by the continuing selection pressures resulting from differences in the environments.
Edited by nwr, : fix typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 2:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 80 of 851 (552227)
03-27-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-27-2010 1:52 PM


Re: MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
I understand why mutation and other sources of variation keep being brought up. Of course, because I'm trying to prove they are rendered GENETICALLY null in the ultimate playing out of evolution. I'm trying to PROVE this, I'm not merely asserting it, Percy. I'm NOT pursuing the various SOURCES of variation, such as recombination versus mutation, my focus is on the processes which SELECT AND ISOLATE. I should probably avoid pursuing all discussion about the sources of variation because it really is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.
But you haven't provided any evidence at all, Faith. None. You haven't offered any type of proof for your assertions.
And trying to exclude mutation and "sources of variation" from a discussion about proposed limits on variation is the equivalent of discussing YEC without Genesis, or Jesus' sacrifice without Original Sin, to put it into terms more familiar to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 851 (552228)
03-27-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
03-27-2010 2:24 PM


Re: MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
I am confused about what you are saying there. I always thought that the thing about ring species was that there is no "last in a series".
I believe you can usually find the beginning and end of a ring species even though they surround a natural barrier in a more or less connected circle. The last in the series may not be the ultimate last, there may be more to come, but it is the end at the moment. Once the circle is connected you usually just get hybridization from that point anyway.
And I'm not sure that it is necessarily true that different species in the ring cannot interbreed - what makes them separate species is that they do not interbreed, which is different from saying that they cannot interbreed.
I'm predicting that there may be a genetic barrier to interbreeding -- not between just any two species in the ring but at least between the first and the last because of the amount of genetic reduction I'd expect from the first to the last. The main thing is the reduction in genetic diversity progressing from first to last in the population. I think this should be logically expectable but it could be studied.
Another point about ring species, is that the different species live in slightly different environments. Presumably there is still selection going on, due to these different environments. It seems entirely possible that different species in the ring could all have the same alleles present in the population, but just with different probability distributions. That is, some alleles might be common in one species in the ring, and rare in another.
Of course. Each population has its own collection and frequencies of alleles.
The different probability distributions could be maintained by the continuing selection pressures resulting from differences in the environments.
There are all kinds of other things that can enter into any such progression of variations, but the simple mechanics of a small proportion of a population's splitting off to become the basis for the next population and repeating for each subsequent population logically entails a progressive loss of genetic diversity. Any number of other factors can enter in from continuing selection to hybridization to retained gene flow, but the basic pattern I'm describing should be logically recognizable.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 03-27-2010 2:24 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 851 (552229)
03-27-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
03-27-2010 10:54 AM


Re: basics
Give me time to get to it and I'll EXPLAIN why you continue to get varieties, AND explain the difference between that and genetic variability which has obviously escaped you.
variety ==== genetic variability
genetic variability ==== variety
You can't have one without the other.
Depends on how you are using the terms. You can have A variety in the sense of a highly refined breed of dog or type of flower, and in the case of the dog it should exhibit reduced genetic variability with respect to the dog population as a whole.
To get "varieties" means for them to be subjected to selection which reduces their genetic variability.
Variety is about phenotypes, variability is about genotypes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2010 10:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 851 (552233)
03-27-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-27-2010 1:52 PM


Re: MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
Faith writes:
I know that even in saying all this I'm up against your assumption that mutation is going on all the time and IS contributing to the construction of new varieties. I do believe that is just an assumption, that the reality is that phenotypes require the elimination of alleles for other phenotypes. Maybe some of the alleles in the new phenotype were originally mutations, that could be, but when a new population is coming to be characterized by this phenotype it can only happen by leaving behind competing alleles, mutation-originated or not.
If I understand the implication of what you are saying, perhaps assumptions such as these are why more evidences of a greater abundance and variety of transitional fossils are not observed.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 851 (552234)
03-27-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-27-2010 1:52 PM


Re: MID-THREAD REORIENTATION
Faith writes:
Of course, because I'm trying to prove they are rendered GENETICALLY null in the ultimate playing out of evolution.
Every allele in existence today had its origin as a mutation to an already existing allele. Given that all alleles begin as mutations, how can you hope to prove mutations have no role in evolution? Alleles that have been around a while are really just old mutations, but we call them alleles. New mutations are alleles, too, but because they just happened we give them the special name of mutations.
If you increase the diversity you simply interfere with the development of a new phenotype.
Do you understand that this is the same as saying that a new allele, one that isn't the same as any other allele in the newly isolated population or in the original population, hinders the emergence of a new phenotype? If so, you realize this makes no sense, right? You do understand that mutations make the newly isolated population even more different from the original population, right?
If mutations or gene flow or any other source of variation kept intruding on this process you would not get these clear established phenotypes.
Why not, Faith? You said you were going to prove this. So go ahead and prove it.
I know that even in saying all this I'm up against your assumption that mutation is going on all the time and IS contributing to the construction of new varieties.
Mutations happen all the time, Faith, it isn't an assumption. You yourself probably have somewhere between 10 and 100 mutations because the average mutation rate for humans is around 2.5 x 10-8 errors per base pair and there are around 3 billion base pairs in the human genome - do the math. The DNA copying process for 3 billions base pairs is not perfect and makes occasional mistakes. Errors are inevitable.
In breeding that would produce nothing but chaos, you'd no longer have the breed, you'd start getting blurry versions of it.
Yes, Faith, precisely, that's exactly what happens given enough time, though breeders would tend to hinder this process by simply choosing not to breed individuals with mutations they didn't like. All species breed almost but not exactly true. Change is inevitable.
But the fact is that in all these instances, where the change IS happening, where phenotypes ARE being formed, where speciation has occurred, where a new breed has developed, that is exactly precisely where evolution comes to a halt.
Evolution never comes to a halt. Remember, reproduction is almost never perfect. It isn't an issue of whether or not there is change. The issue is how in the world would you ever stop it?
Evolutionary change is happening (very slowly) in all species everywhere all the time. The rate of change is a function of the organism itself and the degree of environmental pressure. All existing species are transitional, on their way from the species they were to the unknown and unknowable species they will be, unknown and unknowable because evolution has no direction.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 1:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 4:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 851 (552237)
03-27-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
03-25-2010 6:47 PM


A new theory of evolution by mutation?
I can get all your posts on the screen but I can't figure out how to reply to them as a group.
It seems to be generally overlooked that for evolution to occur, alleles must be eliminated, thus reducing genetic diversity.
Perhaps, or it could increase diversity by dividing various groupings of alleles in different ways in different subpopulations.
That doesn't increase genetic diversity with respect to each subpopulation. If a subpopulation acquires only SOME of the alleles in the division, others are being eliminated -- possessed by other subpopulations -- and a new phenotype can develop for each particular subpopulation from its particular reduced collection of alleles. There is ALWAYS a reduction in genetic diversity when you select out or isolate alleles and build a new population from this reduced group. Always.
Are there more or less alleles in the total genomes of chimpanzees and humans than there were in their common ancestor? Given that we share 95 to 98 percent of DNA between the two, but that each species has alleles that are not shared, then if there is a common number of alleles in a species it seems that the sum of two species must have more alleles than a common ancestor could.
Doesn't seem to work out that way in reality. To get a new species you have to lose alleles. A group of humans that get isolated on an island and interbreed for generations will evolve own characteristics and have much less genetic diversity than the human population as a whole. Their differences from other human populations are not due to mutations but to their sharing among themselves a limited collection of genetic possibilities.
Same with Darwin's finches.
Human evolution from a supposed common ancestor with chimps couldn't have happened.
You can add as many new alleles as you think mutation can come up with at any point in this progression, but when these selection and isolating processes go to work on them the very same thing happens.
If you think of a jar full of water, then adding water inevitably forces some existing water out of the jar, however the jar remains as full as before. What you have are new alleles of water molecules forcing old ones out, while maintaining the overall number of alleles within the population of the water jar. As the new molecules are new alleles, and they have pushed out some old alleles of one type or another (but not necessarily all of one type) then it is quite conceivable that the amount of variation is increased.
If mutation does occur then this is true. You will have more genetic possibilities or more genetic diversity/variability in the population.
When you have a speciation event, you do not divide all the alleles into either one population or the other such that no alleles are shared between the two daughter population, rather you divide the populations into two or more different groups that between them share almost all of the same alleles.
True. And it's possible neither population loses any alleles, just changes frequencies.
Thus, even after ~6 million years of divergent evolution from our common ancestor with chimps we still share 95 to 98% of the DNA and alleles with these cousins.
You are postulating a branching of populations that doesn't lose alleles, just shuffles them. That can happen but that's pretty slow evolution. Really it seems you have a brand new theory of evolution. You have something like a theory of evolution by mutation rather than evolution by natural selection. Sure, if you have populations that are constantly acquiring new alleles through mutation and never lose any you can get change or some kind of evolution over time but it won't be adaptive evolution by natural selection and in fact how is it going to develop a phenotypic characteristic for the whole population either? Seems you would only get a population of the same species with lots and lots of different varieties of that species all mixed together.
To get REAL evolution something has to be selected or isolated from among all those varieties and as soon as that happens, what I'm describing about the necessary loss of genetic diversity in this process has to occur.
Meanwhile, during those ~6 million years we see quite a divergence of hominid types and forms, representing a lot of new diversity.
Seems to me that evolution would have to work pretty hard to eliminate more variations than are created. To my mind there is a surfeit of new alleles that are routinely discarded because there is not enough room and opportunity to add more diversity to the existing
You are now talking so much in the abstract that you are losing the context here. I'm trying to stick to what goes on in observed populations all the time in our own living reality. I'm being abstract too but at least my context is something going on in the present. You have to explain how this supposed surfeit of alleles relates to the usual processes of evolution under natural selection and genetic drift and so on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2010 6:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 10:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 10:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 851 (552238)
03-27-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
03-27-2010 3:46 PM


The assumption that all alleles originated by mutations
Every allele in existence today had its origin as a mutation to an already existing allele.
Not if what I'm saying is true they didn't. This is an article of faith derived from the theory of evolution. Reality belies it.
Given that all alleles begin as mutations, how can you hope to prove mutations have no role in evolution?
By describing what actually happens in reality, which is both logically verifiable and testable.
But I'm not saying mutations have NO role; I don't know if they do or not but obviously SOME sources of variation are required for evolution to work on. I do believe they are largely built in but it may be that there is some way that something like mutations do produce alleles -- I would assume a regularly occurring predictable collection of alleles and nothing truly novel myself but what do I know? Many things are possible.
But what I am describing I believe is simply what happens in the nitty gritty mechanics of evolution that develops new varieties and ultimately speciation. It's reality.
Alleles that have been around a while are really just old mutations, but we call them alleles. New mutations are alleles, too, but because they just happened we give them the special name of mutations.
Yes, this is what the theory of evolution assumes about alleles and mutations. But the reality of how evolution works through the processes defined as its mechanisms leads away from a lot of assumptions evolutionists hold including this one.
What REALLY happens genetically in evolution is what I'm describing. All sorts of evolutionist assumptions would have to be rethought if this is true.
And it is true.
I'll get to the rest of your post later.
Except to say that the mutations you are describing, that actually occur, are not helpful to evolution because they aren't helpful to any living thing except by some rare fluke that plays off a disease against a benefit.
But again, there MAY be some allele formation through mutation. It doesn't change the effect of the processes of selection I'm describing in any case.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 3:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 5:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 851 (552247)
03-27-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
03-27-2010 4:19 PM


Re: The assumption that all alleles originated by mutations
Faith writes:
Every allele in existence today had its origin as a mutation to an already existing allele.
Not if what I'm saying is true they didn't. This is an article of faith derived from the theory of evolution. Reality belies it.
Faith, a mutation *is* an allele - a new allele. The only way a new allele has ever been observed to form is through mutation, i.e., through copying errors as part of reproduction. If you're imagining that some alleles come from some other source then it is one that has never been observed in either nature or the lab.
You said you could prove your view of how evolution works, so you can start any time now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 4:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 6:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 851 (552250)
03-27-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
03-27-2010 5:34 PM


Re: The assumption that all alleles originated by mutations
I assume they were part of the original creation. But I don't want that to be part of this argument and I've been accepting mutations as their source all along. The way you said something led me to object to it, but I'm happy to drop it. Let's leave it at that.
I've been proving it all along. The thread has been getting sidetracked by misunderstandings and irrelevancies but the proof is there for anyone who will think it through. I can't afford the DNA tests on ring species not to mention my arthritis wouldn't let me go out and catch a salamander anyway, and I don't have the means to open a lab or finance one, but what I'm saying IS subject to testing -- DNA samples to test for genetic diversity in various populations after known speciation events.
I'm happy with my thread so far really. It would be wonderful if someone got persuaded but I know that's not going to happen. I have to be content to get it said to my own satisfaction.
I was going to go look up some quotes that might help, if I can find them. Better go do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 5:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 7:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 89 of 851 (552255)
03-27-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
03-27-2010 6:28 PM


Re: The assumption that all alleles originated by mutations
Faith writes:
I've been proving it all along. The thread has been getting sidetracked by misunderstandings and irrelevancies but the proof is there for anyone who will think it through. I can't afford the DNA tests on ring species not to mention my arthritis wouldn't let me go out and catch a salamander anyway, and I don't have the means to open a lab or finance one, but what I'm saying IS subject to testing -- DNA samples to test for genetic diversity in various populations after known speciation events.
First you say you've been "proving it all along," then you say the necessary tests haven't been performed yet. Does the contradiction need to be explained?
I was going to go look up some quotes that might help, if I can find them. Better go do that.
What you really want is references to research that supports your position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 6:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-27-2010 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 851 (552259)
03-27-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
03-27-2010 7:56 PM


proving it
Both are true, I've been proving it all along -- domestic selection, dog breeding, endangered species, concerns of conservationists, link in original OP demonstrating replacement of allele by selected allele etc., and reasoning stepwise through what happens to the genetic situation in a population undergoing selection and isolation -- which here and there down the thread the occasional combatant has AGREED describes the situation.
AND the testing suggestion as WELL. It's not a contradiction. I've referred to BOTH methods of proof.
Evolutionists don't do research in this direction and I haven't found this discussed on creationist sites. They focus on how mutations don't add "information," they don't focus on how selection/isolation reduces genetic diversity.
This is the sort of thing that is normally recognized when pointed out, as in the conservationist context, but when you also point out that it spells doom for evolution then it's no longer recognized and suddenly there isn't a reduction but all kinds of mutations and increase instead.
Back later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 7:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2010 8:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 03-27-2010 9:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 93 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-27-2010 9:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024