|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: Just as much I wouldn't argue with, possibly greater no way. I'm not trying to debate you. I was only requesting clarification about what you meant by this from your Message 735:
Faith in Message 735 writes: No, they do add diversity, or would if they actually make viable alleles, which I doubt, but they would only make alleles for the existing genes for those little insignificant traits, hardly ever if at all an actual new gene. So all you are getting is new variations on those inconsequential traits, you are NOT getting the "completely new traits and functions" evolution requires. You declined to provide any clarification, so I made a ruling. But now you've provided some clarification, so let me try to rewrite your passage in light of the clarification:
"No, they do add diversity, or would if they actually make viable alleles, which I doubt. If they do make viable alleles then they could affect phenotype to the same degree as existing alleles." Do I have this correct now?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: Adding genetic diversity to a population by any means at all, migration or mutation or whatever, adds new phenotypes but doesn't do anything to make a new species out of them. That takes reproductive isolation of a particular set of those traits breeding together over some generations. It doesn't matter if the diversity is added to a large population that subsequently splits, or if it is added at the end of a series of populations, to a subspecies or new species, the same process has to occur for the formation of further species: reproductive isolation of new traits breeding together, and that will reduce genetic diversity (the number of allelic possibilities)which makes further evolution impossible. So you get new diversity and the same thing has to happen and around we go. Evolution, meaning macroevolution, meaning evolution as understood by the Theory of Evolution, really is impossible. I think this is the strongtest statement yet of what you're really saying, but it still contains a bit of inconsistency because it begins by describing how speciation happens but concludes by saying speciation is impossible. Let me restate what I think you're trying to say in order to make sure everyone understands:
Can you please confirm whether this is correct, particularly since it runs counter to the clarification I was seeking in my Message 752, to which you didn't respond.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: I'm not sure where the "significant" enters in here. I'm just trying to clear up some confusion. "Significant" was your terminology. In your Message 735 you were distinguishing between mutations that you claimed could only produce "insignificant" and "inconsequential" new traits on the one hand, and new allele combinations that could produce "completely new traits and functions" on the other:
Faith in Message 735 writes: No, they do add diversity, or would if they actually make viable alleles, which I doubt, but they would only make alleles for the existing genes for those little insignificant traits, hardly ever if at all an actual new gene. So all you are getting is new variations on those inconsequential traits, you are NOT getting the "completely new traits and functions" evolution requires. And in this message you go on to say:
I say that decreased genetic diversity is NECESSARY to microevolution, which is the formation of new traits in a reproductively isolated subpopulation so that together they eventually create a characteristic "look" to that subpopulation -- at which point it should probably be regarded as a subspecies or "race." And all the above from your two messages seems completely consistent with this point:
I think your objection just boils down to that I didn't use the exact same words that you used in the exact same way that you used them, so only if the above is incorrect in some meaningful way, could you please explain how it is incorrect?
I wouldn't say that or perhaps I'm not sure what it means. It can create traits so why not significant ones? Yes, exactly. It can create traits, so why not significant ones? That's the precise point I'm trying to get clarity on. I originally requested clarification because it didn't make sense that mutations could increase genetic diversity and create new traits, but only "insignificant" and "inconsequential" ones.
However, they wouldn't combine with other traits to form a recognizable subspecies as I describe above so perhaps in that sense the traits aren't as "significant." This doesn't make sense either. If we give our loci names like A, B, C, D, etc., and we give the existing alleles for each locus names like A1, A2, A3, etc., and we give new alleles for each locus created through mutation names like Am1, Am2, Am3, etc., then you're saying that significant new traits could be created by this shift to a new allele combination:
A1, B1, C1, D1 => A1, B2, C3, D2 But that significant new traits could not be created by this other shift to a new allele combination that happens to include a mutation at loci B:
A1, B1, C1, D1 => A1, Bm1, C3, D2 The thing is the additive processes like mutation or migration add a random scattering of traits in a population, rather than forming a new species out of them. My claim is that it takes the "subtractive" processes: natural selection or random selection through population splits, to do that. And if speciation is the point where a new species is supposed to form it requires those selective processes to get there. and it's those subtractive/selective processes that reduce genetic diversity. Let me repeat once more that I'm not trying to debate you. I saw what looked to be contradictions and am seeking clarification. Here's another contradiction that is bound to confuse people:
Yes, merely adding new traits won't lead to speciation or even to the formation of a new subspecies. That requires an identifiable collection of allleles / traits in reproductive isolation over some number of generations. A population split tends to reduce genetic diversity and the smaller the population the greater the reduction. So you are getting new traits by losing genetic diversity. As you do in domestic breeding although it's different in not being random. So let me restate, and please let me know if this is incorrect:
And finally:
Which made me wonder if you'd missed some things I'd said previously about speciation, such as in Message 710:
My argument is that what is called speciation and regarded as the springboard to further evolution is an illusion. Of course the situation called speciation exists but it isn't speciation and more to the point, when this condition is reached, genetic diversity is likely to be so limited there is no possibility of further variation, making the whole theory false. The event is quite real though, and serves to prove the creationist view instead, which is that all evolution is only microevolution preprogrammed into the genetic system of each separate Species. This system of built-in variation will reach its built-in limits if pursued to that point called Speciation, or even close to it, where the ToE absurdly assumes a new species has formed with further evolutionary possibilities. In reality what has happened is that evolution has come to its genetic outer limits. So this whole scenario is evidence for the Creationist view against the ToE. Repeating this confusing statement is only bound to create more confusion. This discussion has reached the point where most of the effort involves trying to figure out what you mean. Nobody is going to know what you mean by "speciation exists but it isn't speciation." Speciation already has a definition, so please don't try to redefine it. If you don't think speciation as defined by the science of biology can happen, then please say so plainly. Summarizing, these are the points that I think summarize your position, please correct as necessary:
Edited by Admin, : Fix link to Message 735, which had been incorrectly entered as Message 732.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: Percy, you totally misunderstood that. This is what you always say, and this is why you must clarify what you mean. In this case you may have totally misexplained it, but I totally understood it. I read your post. You quoted NoNukes, I know he said that mutations can create new genes and loci. But in your reply you said that mutations "would only make alleles for the existing genes for those little insignificant traits" and that with mutations "all you are getting is new variations on those inconsequential traits." You contrasted these minor effects with the "completely new traits and functions" that you keep telling us are the result of new allele combinations and reduced genetic diversity. I'm not trying to debate you, Faith. I'm only asking you to clarify some puzzling and/or confusing statements you've made. If you meant something other than what you said then please just tell us what you meant. But it only further confuses things to claim those words meant something other than what they very clearly mean.
I'll have to come back to the rest of your post later. Don't bother with my previous post. Just clear up for everyone whether the following accurately captures your views, and if not then please just provide simple and clear corrections. If you do accept that speciation is possible, then there are these:
And then there are also these:
I'd like to get some clarity so that we can avoid further claims that your position isn't understood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: But if speciation is not really a new species but just a subspecies that has lost the ability to interbreed with other subspecies, and if as a matter of fact it possesses reduced genetic variability, then it is sheer illusion to call it speciation. This represents an attempt to redefine the term "speciation" and is disallowed. Once two subspecies lose the ability to interbreed then they are two different species. It doesn't matter what caused the inability to interbreed. Even if you won your argument that only reduced genetic diversity can have any significant phenotypic impact, they would still be two different species.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: You are just trying to define yourself into being right. No. Please see my Message 795 where I already ruled on this point. "Speciation" already has a definition, please do not attempt to redefine it. You can argue that speciation never happens, even that it is impossible, but you cannot redefine it. I will always rule against the redefinition of existing terms.
If a daughter population has lost the ability to interbreed with the parent population and is distinctly different from the parent population, then we would recognize it as a separate species.Calling it a subspecies that has lost its ability to interbreed is just word play. Definitional word play is a lot of what evolution does. Call it a species, or call it macroevolution, which is another definition used for it, and you can deny its compromised genetic condition. If you would like to discuss the terminology of evolution please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. This thread will be using existing terminology. New terms can be introduced as long as they are clearly defined.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: I'm trying not to redefine it but to discuss it in relation to my argument, such as to answer RAZD, involves describing what I think really happens at that point. If that's redefining it then I guess I'll have to think about a new thread. When describing what you think happens, please do not call it speciation. Speciation already has a definition. If you need a term for what you think happens, could I suggest differentiation? You could define differentiation as changing the phenotype of a subpopulation while maintaining the ability to interbreed. AbE: Please respond to my Message 794. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I didn't understand this part:
NoNukes writes: Let's imagine that there is some limit. Where might that limit be? Is it necessary according to your argument that a progression cannot exceed two separations? three? You claim that the answer is not even one, but you certainly haven't shown even that. By "progression" do you mean the progressive separations of populations into sub-populations and sub-sub-populations, etc., that result in potentially multiple speciation events? And you're saying that Faith's argument doesn't even permit one separation into a sub-population that results in speciation? And that she hasn't demonstrated that yet?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: Which is the argument everyone has, but as I keep trying to get across, even if you could get sufficient genetic diversity from mutations at a point of genetic depletion, (and if you could the cheetah would have been saved long ago but it's not happening) you'd just be getting scattered new traits within the population and not a new subspecies or species; that requires the processes that bring about reduced genetic diversity. If speciation really is the way new biological species arise then evolution is not happening unless you are getting the processes that lead to speciation and those are the processes that reduce genetic diversity, so adding diversity may get you a new trait or two but otherwise it goes nowhere evolutionarily speaking. In this passage you seem to accept speciation as possible. In other messages you've said speciation was impossible. Complicating things have been your attempts to redefine the term speciation. An answer to this simple question would be very helpful:
Is speciation as defined by the science of biology for mammals (your preferred class) possible or not? Also, you say that mutations could only cause "scattered new traits within the population." You've said this many times, and you've received the same response many times: advantageous traits would spread through the population. An answer to this simple question would also be very helpful:
Given that advantageous traits caused by mutations would spread through a population, why do you think the new allele combinations caused by mutations are any less able to cause significant phenotypic change than new allele combinations of existing alleles?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
This isn't relevant to your point, but just in the interest of accuracy:
mikechell writes: Just as an example, use computer code: (from inet2000.com)
128-bit = 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations (give or take a couple trillion...) inet2000.com is the website for an Internet provider. The specific webpage where you found your information is Welcome to Inet2000.com 2128 = 3.4 x 1038. I don't think that's the same as your value. If I just move my decimal point 38 zeros to the right and put it next to yours I get this:
340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (mine) 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (yours) Your value is missing three zeros and your coefficient is off by a little. It isn't "give or take a couple trillion" but "give or take hundreds of undecillions." Lots of sites seem to repeat this error. Strangely, it's the only completely incorrect value on that webpage (some of the other values are only a little off).
There are billions of genes. Tens of thousands is pretty common.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: mikechell writes: the environment weeds out unproductive changes. Pure ToE, purely hypothetical. If this really happened in reality nobody would survive. This has the potential to create a great deal of confusion as it seems contradictory. How can you accept selection when it involves reduced genetic diversity but reject selection in all other contexts? Why would selection operate differently upon a trait depending upon the genetic process that produced the trait?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: The usual idea is that the creature changed to adapt to the environment or in this case food source, but I suspect the creature evolved its characteristic first, due to simple change in allele frequencies brought about by a population split, and then found the food that suited its characteristic best. I can't tell from your example if this possibility has been addressed. Yes, it was addressed. Put simply, through analysis they identified the specific gene and the changes to the gene that provided the Swedish population with freeze tolerance, then they checked their analysis by inserting the Italian version of the gene into a Swedish population and observed that freeze tolerance was lost. HBD's point was that these are the types of changes one would expect as different populations of the same species experience different mutations and different selection pressures.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: The declaration that it's all so much more complex is not evidence. HBD didn't just declare that it's complex, he actually presented the data to you. You dismissed it claiming it was too complex for you to understand. Instead of dismissing what you don't understand, it would greatly improve discussion if you would instead work to understand it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Faith writes: Oy. Let me simplify HBD's point. There's a species with a main population A and an isolated subpopulation B. Consider just one gene of this species that has alleles R, Q and S, but the S allele is missing in subpopulation B. That means the populations have these possible combinations of alleles for this gene:
Population A: RR RQ QQ RS QS SS Population B: RR RQ QQ Notice that population B has no allele combinations that do not exist in population A. Expressed another way, every allele combination of population B already exists in population A. Given this information, it would be very helpful if you could answer this question:
How can population B ever be a genetically different species than population A? Naturally it would also be very helpful if you could clarify whether you think speciation is even possible with your reduced genetic diversity approach. Everyone else already knows the answer is no, they're just waiting for you to arrive at the same conclusion. And once you do understand that just mixing the same old alleles into new combinations cannot create genetically new species, it should also help you understand the problems with your claim that reduced genetic diversity is how evolution works. Biologists already understand that reduced genetic diversity by itself cannot create a genetically new species, so they would never propose or even consider it as the way evolution works. AbE: I should have commented about this:
Faith writes: But is Population B a daughter population to A? I assume it must be but you don't say. Here is the diagram HBD provided earlier:
And here is the description HBD provided in Message 721:
herebedragons in message 721 writes: At this point, both subpopulation 'A' and subpopulation 'B' are the same species but live in distinct geographical regions. So no, population B is not a daughter population of population A. But in his example HBD addresses the alleles of a specific gene to illustrate how impossible it is, at least with respect to this gene, for population B to become genetically different from population A. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: And if it hasn't, and acquired more genetic diversity after forming a species or subspecies, as I keep saying, that produces only scattered new traits, it still has to be subjected to the processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to arrive at a new species or subspecies. Please respond to my Message 852.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024