|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakids writes: Percy et al should take note of the "relaxation of natural selection" part. You just keep repeating the same mistakes. These are captive trout populations the article is about. Everybody already knows that creatures in fish farms and zoos and homes and so forth are not subject to the same degree of selection pressures as out in the wild. Nobody is questioning this. We're talking about what happens in nature, not what happens in artificial breeding programs. There is no "relaxation of natural selection" in nature. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
In population genetics, fitness is almost always measured against ancestral populations.
How does one do this? Do we dig them up and reanimate them? This is so sad. And it is clear evidenc of how much you guys really know, which is very little. Even if you didn't have the paper right in front of you this isn't hard to figure out. You take a parent population. You measure how many offspring they have. You measure how many offspring that survive to reproductive age. That is a measurement of reproductive fitness of the parental population. Now the offspring have offspring. And you make the same measurements. And you keep doing this. The reproductive fitness of each generation is compared to the originating population. That's how you measure relative populations for relative fitness. Open your minds people. EVO has blinded you to so much simple stuff. This is elementary school science here.
Decreasing compared to what? To other MODERN populations of fish? And what environment are they measuring this fitness in? In the hatchery environment where the hatchery fish have been selected for or in other environments where the other modern population has been evolving? Is it even possible for you to read and comprehend the paper? He spells it out quite simply.
This fitness decline took place in just 12 years. Oh My! with no inbreeding depression. Oh my! Could it be genetic entropy? Oh my! No. A creationist cannot be right. Fitness decline in which environment? oh Mercy! This is really so sad. Here, from the paper directly:
In this study, we investigated the strength of genetic effects of domestication on the reproductive success of captive-reared individuals in the wild. Confounding environmental effects were avoided by comparing captive-reared individuals with different histories of captive breeding in the previous generation (Fig. 1). We reconstructed a three-generation pedigree of the winter-run steelhead in the Hood River (19) and compared adult-to-adult reproductive success (number of wild-born, adult offspring per parent) of two types of captive-reared fish (designated C): captive-reared fish from two wild-born parents (C[WxW]), and captive-reared fish from a wildborn parent and a first-generation captive-reared parent (C[CxW]). C[CxW] and C[WxW] were born in the same year, reared in the same hatchery without distinction, and released at the same time. Both fish originated from the same local population, so we can also exclude the influence of local origin. The only difference between them is half of the genome. The half genome in C[CxW] was inherited from the captive-reared parent and experienced captivity for two consecutive generations (during the egg-to-juvenile development). The other half in C[CxW] was from the wild parent and experienced captivity for one generation (C[CxW] itself). In contrast, the entire genome of the C[WxW] experienced captivity for one generation. Thus, by comparing C[CxW] with C[WxW], we were able to evaluate the effect of a single extra generation of captive rearing on subsequent reproductive success in the wild, while controlling for the effect of rearing environment (Fig. 1). In science you set controls to measure the effects of the environment. But clearly some of you are unable to read and comprehend science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You take a parent population. You measure how many offspring they have. You measure how many offspring that survive to reproductive age. That is a measurement of reproductive fitness of the parental population. This assumes that the environment is the same, that predation is the same, etc.
Open your minds people. EVO has blinded you to so much simple stuff. This is elementary school science here. We are not the ones removing natural selection from the process of evolution and then complaining because deleterious mutations increase.
Is it even possible for you to read and comprehend the paper? He spells it out quite simply. It wasn't in the original quote you gave us. What is wrong for asking for the context for the measurement of fitness? Also, why isn't there genetic entropy in the wild populations? Shouldn't we be seeing the same decrease in fitness in the wild populations as seen in the captive populations according to MA?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
You take a parent population. How do you "take a parent population" that has been dead and gone for a substantial period of time?
You measure how many offspring they have. How do you measure "how many offspring they have" when they and all their offspring are dead? Again - "fitness" is a measure of an organism's ability to compete with the other living organisms in its environment. Fitness isn't something you can measure against a long-dead ancestral population in a long-nonexistent environment.
EVO has blinded you to so much simple stuff. CREO seems to have blinded you to the very simple "stuff" that long-dead ancestors are dead, and therefore aren't starring in very many fitness competitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi AOK,
You're still misinterpreting the material you're quoting. As near as I can gather, you seem to think that when it says, "we were able to evaluate the effect of a single extra generation of captive rearing on subsequent reproductive success in the wild," that it supports your claim about reduced natural selection in the wild. There is no reduced natural selection pressure in the wild. We're talking about what happens in nature, not what happens in artificial breeding programs.
AlphaOmegakid writes: This is so sad. And it is clear evidenc of how much you guys really know, which is very little. You could cut the irony with a knife. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, AOk.
AOk writes: Thanks, I'm a masochist looking for some punishment. And, I would also like to say that I missed your zingers: wittiest creationist I ever met! -----
AOk writes: I made no mess, but you have....I was trying to prevent equivocation which evidently you want to promote. Um... ignoring everything else you wrote in your reply to me, I would like to point out that the only point I was making was that you reversed the names of the two evolutionary concepts. Once again, the term "neo-Darwinian synthesis" refers to the parts of ToE that you agree with. The extra stuff about the tree of life and natural history was part of Darwin's work from the beginning, and thus, is not "neo-" anything. Look it up. I suspect that you chose "neo-Darwinism" for the parts you disagree with, despite the factual and historical inaccuracy of doing so, simply because it has the word "Darwin" in it, and you don't want to say you accept anything that has the word "Darwin" in it. For an added bit of historical context, look up "pangenesis." This was what Darwin proposed as the mechanism of inheritance. Neo-Darwinism is the modern form of the ToE that rejected Pangenesis in favor of Mendelian genetics, but accepted all the other bits. When you understand this important little bit, you will suddenly realize why "neo-Darwinism" is not what you think it is. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, AOk.
AlphaOmegakid writes: Well, the negative effect on the phenotype was so small that in nature there was no recognizable fitness difference between thiose organizms that had X, Y, and Z slightly deleterious alleles and so the population frequency of those alleles increased through drift. I find it worth pointing out that the increase in frequency through drift that you keep alluding to is far from inevitable. Drift can also cause alleles to decrease in frequency. In fact, an increase in the frequency of one allele, by definition, requires a decrease in the frequency of another allele. So, if there is no difference in fitness between two given alleles, then it's game of chance that clearly favors an established, prevalent allele over an upstart mutant. I would go so far as to speculate that drift is much more likely to cause allele extinctions than allele fixations, especially for rare alleles, such as upstart mutants (though I appeal to Taq or WK to confirm or deny this). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Also, why isn't there genetic entropy in the wild populations? Shouldn't we be seeing the same decrease in fitness in the wild populations as seen in the captive populations according to MA? What do you think endangered species are? I think they say something like us mean ole humans have led to the near extinction of 25% of all the known vetebrate species. You guys are usually sympathetic to this data. But isn't that survival of the fittest? What's the big deal if we (the fittest) cause extinctions of others. Isn't that the way of nature? Remember, there is no absolute right or wrong here. And why can't they adapt. I mean we've supposedly been thru all kinds of extinction events. So what's the big deal. Man wasn't around for any of those. Mean ole nature did it. But the fact remains that many species are going extinct. I rest that there is ample evidence of genetic entropy on this earth. And it is clearly evident in the small endangered populations. They are full of negative mutations, and have very low fertility rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
And why can't they adapt. I mean we've supposedly been thru all kinds of extinction events. So what's the big deal. Man wasn't around for any of those. Mean ole nature did it. Like the ones we try to make extinct do? Irony in its purest form, we do our best to make rats, roches, weeds, and simmilar species go extinct though some how they adapt to our poisons, traps ..... and yet when we remove the haitat of a simple panda bear, or hunt some animals for their furs like the lion , tiger, ape they end up on the endangerd species list. Well that is the point of mass extinctions not a whole lot is left arround at one point there was a 95% species exstinction, to put it in numbers you would understand if 95% of all humans died today there would be 350 000 people left on the planet NOT ALL CAN ADAPT TO THEIR NEW ENVIORMENT IN TIME !!!! and those that do usualy evolve to survive better in these new conditions and slowly but surly the planet gets filled whit life once again. Now tell me how can a lion adapt so he will not be hunted by humans for sport or that he can beat humans in this hunt. How can a panda evolve that he gets to keep his home or should he move in to the city and get a job???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AlphaOmegaKid writes: Taq writes: Also, why isn't there genetic entropy in the wild populations? Shouldn't we be seeing the same decrease in fitness in the wild populations as seen in the captive populations according to MA? What do you think endangered species are? I think they say something like us mean ole humans have led to the near extinction of 25% of all the known vetebrate species. You guys are usually sympathetic to this data. But isn't that survival of the fittest? What's the big deal if we (the fittest) cause extinctions of others. Isn't that the way of nature? Remember, there is no absolute right or wrong here. And why can't they adapt. I mean we've supposedly been thru all kinds of extinction events. So what's the big deal. Man wasn't around for any of those. Mean ole nature did it. But the fact remains that many species are going extinct. I rest that there is ample evidence of genetic entropy on this earth. And it is clearly evident in the small endangered populations. They are full of negative mutations, and have very low fertility rates. I'm sorry but does making Christians look stupid just come naturally to you or do you have to work at it? Is there a difference between die of natural causes and being killed? They can't adapt because WE changed the environment and change it faster than they can adapt. Further, how do endangered species exhibit natural selection? You already said that most endangered species are the result of man changing the environment. And absolute right and wrong really are irrelevant. We can also determine right and wrong and fortunately, we have evolved to the point that we can see that creating endangered species by our voluntary actions is wrong. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: What do you think endangered species are? You've completely lost your way. You claim that slightly deleterious mutations will fixate and accumulate in populations to the point of causing a continual decrease in population fitness over time. As an example you're now citing endangered species, which are species whose existence is threatened by habitat destruction or hunting or some other cause of usually human origin. These kinds of things have no influence on mutations or fixation. All of us, and I mean everyone, should just be trying to follow the evidence where it leads, but you've made claims about neutral and nearly neutral mutations that go way beyond Kimura and Ohta, and so you should not be surprised that the evidence for these claims that you've made up do not exist. It's worth reemphasizing the point Bluejay made in Message 217 about fixation. The fixating of neutral or nearly neutral mutations in a population is something that is possible, not something that is probable. In a sexual species a new very slightly deleterious mutation has a 50/50 chance of being passed on to offspring, and the same odds apply in all subsequent generations. Some such mutations will win the lottery and become fixated in the population, but not many. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jar writes:
When mountain gorillas see hunters coming they start breeding like crazy - hoping to 'win' Hippopotamus skin. They can't adapt because WE changed the environment and change it faster than they can adapt. "Faster everyone! We just need a few more hundred thousand generations before we become bullet-proof! *crosses fingers*""The hunters are nearly here!" "What do you mean: you aren't even pregnant yet?!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You guys are usually sympathetic to this data. But isn't that survival of the fittest? What's the big deal if we (the fittest) cause extinctions of others. Isn't that the way of nature? So is tooth decay, that doesn't mean that I want my teeth to decay or stop brushing my teeth.
And why can't they adapt. I mean we've supposedly been thru all kinds of extinction events. So what's the big deal. Man wasn't around for any of those. Mean ole nature did it. I think that this has been mocked sufficiently already without me chipping in.
But the fact remains that many species are going extinct. I rest that there is ample evidence of genetic entropy on this earth. And it is clearly evident in the small endangered populations. They are full of negative mutations, and have very low fertility rates. And when you force a population through a small bottneck, that is exactly when real science tells us that you get genetic meltdown. Score another point for the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
AOk, I'm gobsmacked.
What do you think endangered species are? In a modern context, they are almost exclusively those species that are threatened by human activity. The leading causes of extinction are loss of habitat (due to human activity), competition for resources (with humanity), non-native species (introduced by humans), climate change (caused by humans), overexploitation (by humans), pollution (humans again) and the spread of pathogens (by humans). Genetic entropy is not on the list. It astonishes me that a Christian, who, one assumes, believes that God placed us in stewardship over the animals, would be so keen to spread misinformation about the loss of biodiversity. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the current extinction rate is about a thousand times what we might reasonably expect compared to the fossil record. That isn't nature. It's us. Quit trivialising it please. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hi Granny,
Why are you gobsmacked?
In a modern context, they are almost exclusively those species that are threatened by human activity. Yes, I agree! But aren't we just an evolved species? Humans that is? Aren't we just a natural out come of millions years of natural processes and our ape friends are the same? Many of them made the list by the way. We would have been on it till we got the heck out of Africa! Aren't humans 100% natural?
The leading causes of extinction are loss of habitat (due to human activity But doesn't this happen from other species as well? Don't other species destroy habitats all the time. Have you ever heard of locusts? And I remember just recently we had a problem with a certain moth/caterpillar that stripped all the oak trees in a multi-state region. Isn't this all just part of nature. Sure species get knocked out of where they live, but this is not just our species that causes such events. It's just part of nature.
competition for resources (with humanity) Yes, and we are winning! Oh? is that bad? Sorry. Isn't there competition amongst all species for resources? That's what natural selection is. Do you not like your own theory? I agree, I don't like it either.
non-native species (introduced by humans), But don't other species do this also? Have you ever wondered how fish get into man made lakes? Miracles or Nature? And what about all that natural plate techtonics which disperses species? And climate change and migrations? And fury animals that carry parasites and bugs and the like? Isn't this just a part of nature?
climate change (caused by humans) Oh yes, we do have a lot of technology that produces carbon emissions. But let's not forget about the cows and wildabeasts to. Don't they fart alot? Maybe we can use science to capture that and run our cars! Don't other species contribute to the 1.5 degrees increase in 100 years. I have seen so many species just dropping over dead due to those 1.5 degrees. But isn't this just natural?
overexploitation (by humans) Yes, sometimes we like money. And we fish too much, and hunt too much. And sometimes those poor unevolved critters just don't survive. But don't other species do this? Don't sometimes they kill more than they can eat? And doesn't our overexploited waste produce a great ecosystem for many species to thrive? Isn't this just nature at work?
pollution (humans again) Yes, we do inadvertantly kill some critters with pollution. Isn't BP a UK company? Oh my, those poor pelicans and dolphins and other birds covered with oil. All that Dawn dish washing soap! I should have bought stock! But didn't I read about some microbes thriving on eating the oil? And don't those microbes get eaten by other species? And don't those species get eaten by other species? And doesn't oil leak all over the world into the oceans? And other chemicals as well? And please don't forget all those fishies that crap in the oceans and use it as a sewer! Shame! You don't drink that water do you? It's polluted! But isn't this just nature in action? Some die, some thrive!
and the spread of pathogens (by humans) Yes, our diseases do sometimes kill other critters. Especially those in our ape family. But don't forget about all those people killed by pig pathogens. And all those humans killed by bird pathogens. If we hadn't evolved such superior brains to fight these pathogens, then we would probably be on the list. But isn't this natural?
Genetic entropy is not on the list. It's not? Oh let me inform you....It most definitely is!
Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss and degradation; reconciling empirical evidence and predicted theory for neotropical trees The theoretical impacts of anthropogenic habitat degradation on genetic resources have been well articulated. Here we use a simulation approach to assess the magnitude of expected genetic change, and review 31 studies of 23 neotropical tree species to assess whether empirical case studies conform to theory. Major differences in the sensitivity of measures to detect the genetic health of degraded populations were obvious. Most studies employing genetic diversity (nine out of 13) found no significant consequences, yet most that assessed progeny inbreeding (six out of eight), reproductive output (seven out of 10) and fitness (all six) highlighted significant impacts. These observations are in line with theory, where inbreeding is observed immediately following impact, but genetic diversity is lost slowly over subsequent generations, which for trees may take decades. Studies also highlight the ecological, not just genetic, consequences of habitat degradation that can cause reduced seed set and progeny fitness. Unexpectedly, two studies examining pollen flow using paternity analysis highlight an extensive network of gene flow at smaller spatial scales (less than 10 km). Gene flow can thus mitigate against loss of genetic diversity and assist in long-term population viability, even in degraded landscapes. Unfortunately, the surveyed studies were too few and heterogeneous to examine concepts of population size thresholds and genetic resilience in relation to life history. Future suggested research priorities include undertaking integrated studies on a range of species in the same landscapes; better documentation of the extent and duration of impact; and most importantly, combining neutral marker, pollination dynamics, ecological consequences, and progeny fitness assessment within single studies. Genetics and conservation biology Abstract Conservation genetics encompasses genetic management of small populations, resolution of taxonomic uncertainties and management units, and the use of molecular genetic analyses in forensics and to understanding species’ biology. The role of genetic factors in extinctions of wild populations has been controversial, but evidence now shows that they make important contributions to extinction risk. Inbreeding has been shown to cause extinctions of wild populations, computer projections indicate that inbreeding depression has important effects on extinction risk, and most threatened species show signs of genetic deterioration. Inappropriate management is likely to result if genetic factors are ignored in threatened species management Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservationprograms Abstract As wild environments are often inhospitable (doesn't sound like just humans does it?), many species have to be captive-bred to save them from extinction. In captivity, species adapt genetically to the captive environment and these genetic adaptations are overwhelmingly deleterious when populations are returned to wild environments. I review empirical evidence on (i) the genetic basis of adaptive changes in captivity, (ii) factors affecting the extent of genetic adaptation to captivity, and (iii) means for minimizing its deleterious impacts. Genetic adaptation to captivity is primarily due to rare alleles that in the wild were deleterious and partially recessive. The extent of adaptation to captivity depends upon selection intensity, genetic diversity, effective population size and number of generation in captivity, as predicted by quantitative genetic theory. Minimizing generations in captivity provides a highly effective means for minimizing genetic adaptation to captivity, but is not a practical option for most animal species. Population fragmentation and crossing replicate captive populations provide practical means for minimizing the deleterious effects of genetic adaptation to captivity upon populations reintroduced into the wild. Surprisingly, equalization of family sizes reduces the rate of genetic adaptation, but not the deleterious impacts upon reintroduced populations. Genetic adaptation to captivity is expected to have major effects on reintroduction success for species that have spent many generations in captivity. This issue deserves a much higher priority than it is currently receiving. Now there is no question that genetic entropy happens and it plays an important part in extinction. And you know what Granny? Humans don't create any genetic entropy. All we are doing is trying to help the poor critters. So you have a catch 22. High levels of natural selection (inhospitality) cause reduction in population size, which can lead to extinction. Right? However, if we relax natural selection (for Percy) in captive environments, then we allow deleterious mutations and genetic entropy to be propogated into the population which leads to extinction. You can't win. So the evidence is right before you. Species are going extinct , and we may not be able to do anything about it. Now my question to you is why can't they adapt? That's your belief about neo-Darwinian Theory in the past. Through evo history we have multiple extinction events which lead to new species. Each speciation event being a small population with inbreeding inevitable. Why did they survive and thrive in the imagined past, when animals can't survive and thrive with these downturns today? And isn't the great KT extinction which led to the evolution of all the mammal species we see today? So isn't extinction a good thing? Why are you trying to stop it? Let it happen, and maybe we will evolve into superior beings. And we'll have lots of new species running around. I don't think 1.5 degrees reaches the level of a great asteroid striking the earth does it? So go ahead an kill the whales! Stop relaxing natural selection (for Percy). Go ahead an make fur coats! Kill those polar bears and warm the oceans! Let humans die! We have to many of them any way! It's the natural way! It is the way of nature in the supposed past, and it needs to be the way of nature today!
It astonishes me that a Christian, who, one assumes, believes that God placed us in stewardship over the animals, would be so keen to spread misinformation about the loss of biodiversity. Or could it be the Christians that are telling you the truth about genetic entropy, which the evidence clearly suggests! Extinctions are in our past. They will be in our future! It is the Christian principle of stewardship that seeks to preserve these species even though we may not be capable. The evolutionist principle is in direct opposition to preservation. It is altrusitic! And it is contradictory for the origin of species..... Here, read your just so story of history and tell me if man cause the 99% of extinct species to become extinct. He didn't.
Largely because of these mass extinctions, it is estimated that of all the species that have existed on Earth during the past 3.5 billion years, 99 percent have become extinct because of natural causes. And what led to the great bio diversity.....EXTINCTIONS! So praise the nature god and let those extinctions happen so we can all get back to evolving!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024