Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 259 (770750)
10-13-2015 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Admin
10-13-2015 3:00 PM


Re: Another Issue to Focus On
Dr Adquate's Message 41 is another good issue. Discussion could explore the mechanisms required to produce the genomes and genomic diversity we observe in nature today from a 2 or 14 creature bottleneck around 4500 years ago.
Why is that an opinion of Admin rather than Percy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 10-13-2015 3:00 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 10-13-2015 5:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 47 of 259 (770751)
10-13-2015 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
10-13-2015 12:59 PM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
Again, evolution is nothing but speculation and conjecture and fantasy and imaginative hooha, it's not science and the evidence for it is assumptions and conjectures.
Could you have that translated into Latin and then sung by a choir of monks in plainchant while they burn a witch? Only that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that would accentuate the irony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 3:56 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 48 of 259 (770753)
10-13-2015 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
10-13-2015 3:44 PM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
Could you have that translated into Latin and then sung by a choir of monks in plainchant while they burn a witch? Only that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that would accentuate the irony.
You just made coffee come out my nose. If evolution was true that should not happen.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(2)
Message 49 of 259 (770754)
10-13-2015 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


And around we go on the merry-go-round: Faith fails to grab the brass ring again ...
... after a review of my basic argument.
Could you perhaps put it is simple bullet form for the new readers, and describe precisely what your thesis is, for clarity of argument?
... They are of course arguments that absolutely kill the ToE but because the ToE is this wiggly amorphous thing that doesn't require evidence, nothing can ever really be proved against it. So one is reduced to repeating the arguments that would kill it if the evos appreciated them properly.
Wrong. Evidence supports evolution in every generation; we see the processes occur year after year, and we see that the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain ALL the evidence. There is not one (1) piece of evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals, which brings about a new set of gene frequencies, ...
Wrong. A founding population has a set of alleles defined by the individuals and they may or may not be similar in frequency to the ones in the parent population. What a founding population enables is the incorporation of new mutations into the mix due to lower selection pressure to maintain the original frequencies. In other words new mutations are more likely to be beneficial in a founding population.
... It would just take somewhat longer because all the different genetic possibilities of the new population would have to work through the whole population to create the new subspecies ...
And neither genetics nor evolution work that way.
(RAZD I believe, or someone, suggested I should use the word "phenome" for this new subspecies but the definition at Google doesn't clearly suggest this meaning.)
And that should be your first clue that once again you are trying to redefine a word because you don't understand it. Part of this is your mental tangle everytime you come up against the word species and the fact that new species, according to the scientific definition, do evolve. A fact you refuse to recognize.
Perhaps you should use clade, and the formation of a new subclade.
"Phenome" is similar to "genome" -- it means the sum of the phenotype traits and their variations and frequencies in the same way that genome means the sum of the genotype alleles and their variations and frequencies. It is not a term of classification.
The processes that bring about these phenotypic changes and ultimately can create a subpopulation that is distinctively different from the parent population and from all other related populations of the same species, reduce genetic diversity with each new subpopulation. ...
Wrong. The process that makes a subclade that is distinctively different from the parent population is new mutations and the expression of them in new traits that don't occur in the parent population. The only way to develop reproductive incompatibility is to have new genes that are incompatible with those in the parent population. Reproductive incompatibility requires increased genetic diversity via mutation to occur. This is an observed fact.
Mutation doesn't change this fact, though it is the usual argument against it here: mutation, if it did create viable alleles as is claimed, and there is no evidence that it does, would only be the source of the possible variations, and it would therefore be subject to the processes that reduce their diversity the same as if the alleles were built in from Creation. It makes no difference to the end result. If mutation occurred in anything like the numbers required by the ToE, species like the cheetah would not be endangered, but if mutation did occur to such an extent, you'd never get new subspecies at all, because new phenotypes are built on new genotypes, new variations on new gene frequencies, the alleles for the former genotypes having become low frequency in the new population whereas in the former population they were high frequency. Eventually they may drop out of the new population altogether.
Pure unadulterated conjecture based on not understanding.
As PaulK says you need to show your numbers not just make assertions, and you have had years here to do this work and still fail to do so.
What this implies is that the genome of each species defines the limit of that species' possible variations, beyond which no further evolution is possible.
False. The genome of a species is a snapshot of that species and the next generation will be different because ... new mutations occur every generation and they de facto change the genome and allow it to branch wherever opportunity for increased survival and reproduction lie.
True, and you made your point on the question of whether a brain is needed for the various different kinds of eyes. But in the process of course you treated those different kinds as if they were stages of evolution, for which there is no evidence whatever, and that's what prompted my answer.
Wrong. They are evidence that all those different types of light sensing are on their own viable and successful systems that provide continued benefit for survival and reproduction of each of the various types of organisms. The types of protoeyes and eyes discussed are rather obviously on different evolutionary lineages -- we do not have multiple eyes like bugs for example.
The evidence of evolution is that all mammals all inherited their "mammal" eyes from the protomammals that (gosh) already had eyes. Those eyes are characterized by (a) having a single lens that is focused by muscles that change its shape, and (b) a backwards facing retina that faces away from the incoming light with the nerves and blood vessels inside the eyeball so that (i) there is a "blind spot" and (ii) the light has to pass through the retina before it is sensed by the photoreceptor cells.
Mammals do not have cephalopod eyes where (a) the lens is fixed and focused by moving the retina towards and away from the lens and (b) the forward facing retina faces the light and is unobstructed by nerves and blood vessels. Not only that mammals cannot evolve cephalopod eyes without having to first lose the eyes they have, and thus are stuck with their bad design.
Likewise the evidence of evolution is that all quadruped organisms have this same basic backwards eye pattern, that it had evolved in the ancestral lineage before emerging onto the land. Likewise bony fish. The evolution of the eye is much older that the evolution of the mammal ear, which we have also discussed.
It seems rather silly to talk about the evolution of the human eye when it evolved back before the fish ancestors emerged onto land, and the only changes have been refinements to suit specific species (color sensing in birds, the sharp vision of eagles, iris color, etc).
... My argument is that there is no evidence whatever that it's possible to get genetically from one kind to another. ...
As you argued in relation to the ear. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away, and claiming it doesn't exist is false.
... As I said on that thread, I'm astonished at how readily you scientifically minded people reify a mere imagined pathway from one to another as if it were fact.
And as was said in response, science works by explaining the evidence; the theory\theories that best explain the evidence are accepted as the best known explanation of the evidence. It does not need to be proven it just needs to be plausible, supported by actual empirical evidence and not contradicted by any other evidence. Any new explanation that supersedes the previous one and improves the explanations (and develops new predictions) will become accepted.
Opinion\fantasy unfounded on evidence will not.
Remember that it was a prediction that intermediate ears would be found between the "reptile" ear and the "mammal" ear, and those intermediates were found in the precise spacial/temporal matrix for the evolution from one to the other to occur. If they were just different separately created species species as you claim then why don't they occur randomly anywhere on earth rather than only in the location and at the time they are observed? Evolution explains this and your opinion\fantasy does not.
But that is in fact not evidence for evolution at all, since it's nothing but the mental juggling of different forms of light sensitivity that show up willy-nilly among a huge variety of life forms that are not genetically related to each other. There is no support whatever for the idea that they evolved. The best explanation is that they were all separately designed for each creature's needs.
Wrong. First, in terms of genetic evidence we see the nested clades predicted by evolution are formed by the different eye types. Your "separate design" is under no restriction to fall into such clades for such specific traits ... if they are the remains of basic created kinds then you have 10 kinds, all aquatic.
Second, for such a "huge variety of life forms" we see a few basic models of eyes, and we see that bad designs are carried forward regardless of the original shortcoming, with modifications and adaptations to increase the ability as much as can be done with the basic design -- a prediction of evolution, and not a prediction of "separate design" which should be under no such constraint.
Again, science uses the best explanation of ALL the evidence.
Sure it's "easy" to imagine how the eye coulda evolved if you imagine the different visual capacities into stages and ignore the whole question of whether it's even genetically possible for it to happen. ...
An aspect that you are not informed on. Let's take a quick look at what is "genetically possible" ...
Take any protoeye -- say a patch of cells that are photosensitive (tells light from dark and enables behavior based on relative benefit of light), and a next stage as a cup shape on the skin (that enables better discrimination of direction of light):
What is genetically improbable about forming a cup shape? Dimples are seen in skin surfaces as a general rule, not as an exception.
Tell us Faith, what prevents this step from evolving?
The obvious answer to this is that the Designer knew what He was doing from the getgo and didn't need to go back to the drawing board to accomplish His purposes. One shot was enough, no need to start with crank-up engines on cars that looked like the buggies of the horse-and-buggy days. His designs are suited to life on this physical planet for a variety of different kinds of creatures with different functions. We got our creative abilities from the image of God but for us it's all trial and error, for Him it was a matter of speaking and it was done.
The obvious and inadequate answer is that he was lazy and stayed with a poor design when he had a better one available where one shot would have been enough ... but wasn't used, because ... ?
The obvious and inadequate answer is that most of what he was failure after failure as evidenced by the fact that over 99% of all species are extinct. Created to perish ... or created to make fake evidence for evolution?
Again, evolution explains why, just as science explains ALL the evidence in the best, most economical way -- because the poor design was inherited from fishy ancestors.
You have bad eyesight, Faith, a result of your evolutionary heritage with a poor design that is susceptible to such problems.
Well, but it obviously doesn't look like that or your apparently omniscient human race would have developed the theory long before Darwin came along. And then he got most of it wrong. His stuff was all speculation too, you know, just an exercise in imagination, and even he could see ahead to problems with it, which are now claimed to have been solved but weren't. He knew there had to be an endless presentation of transitionals, gradations galore, not the occasional seeming transitional that only emphasizes the fact that there are indeed discrete species that don't blur together either in the fossil record or among living things.
Curiously, the more evidence we find the more we find transitionals (indeed all fossils are transitionals, showing a snapshot of a stage of evolution). Ignoring evidence that such transitions do exist shows the validity of evolution, and when we look at Foraminifera, for instance, we can see a virtually complete record of transitions from species to species to species for some 65,000 years, all blurred together into a continuum of evolution.
Genetically evolution is impossible beyond the microevolution ...
Which is how all evolution occurs. All macroevolution involves (by the definition used in science) is speciation and reproductive isolation and the long term evolution of breeding populations - cladogenesis and anagenesis -- as you have been told countless times.
... that is confined to built-in variability in the genome of each species. ...
A restriction that does not exist in reality. Again this has been demonstrated with actual empirical evidence: new traits occur by mutation that confer a benefit and become incorporated into the genome, increasing diversity.
... when nothing more is needed to understand them than the usual variations possible within the genomes of the finch species and the tortoise species, microevolved due to reproductive isolation of portions of the population varying their different gene frequencies in different locations. ...
Plus mutations, that enabled those variations. Gosh: evolution occurred, whoda thunk?
*Pod Mrcaru lizards (Croatia) was first mentioned by frako HERE
Rapid differentiation of Jutland cattle was first mentioned on that same thread by Percy ...
And nothing says that some evolutionary events can't occur in a few generations. Such incidents are evidence that evolution continues to occur.
Message 7: PaulK as usual seems not to grasp the simple principle that the processes of evolution eliminate alleles, no matter what the original source of those alleles. Granted it's not an easy idea to grasp but a little effort might help.
No Faith, we understand that natural selection and drift eliminates less viable alleles in favor of ones that provide better success at survival and breeding; we also understand that new alleles are developed via mutation, and that some alleles turn out to benefit the carriers in their pursuit of survival and reproductive success.
Numbers are irrelevant. You have to grasp the dynamic of the situation. Subtractive processes bring about evolution of new subspecies; additive processes only interfere.
Let me fix that for you:
Numbers are irrelevant. You have to grasp the dynamic of the situation. Additive processes bring about evolution of new subspecies; subtractive processes only interfere.
Breeding programs are my main evidence that new subspecies require reduction in genetic diversity. You do not get pure breeds unless you eliminate traits that don’t belong to the breed.
You don't get a new breed without mutations Many new breeds are developed from mutations that occur ... , and you can't maintain that breed without eliminating any new mutations. The elimination of mutations does not create the breed, it only maintains it. Let dogs breed naturally and the breed will disappear.
Endangered species such as the cheetah also demonstrate the principle that you get a specialized subspecies by the LOSS of alleles for competing traits. The cheetah is reduced to fixed loci for most of its characteristics. In this world of death and disease that’s a hardship for the cheetah, but nevertheless it demonstrates the principle that you get the new subspecies by losing the traits for other versions of the same species. You get a cheetah by eliminating the alleles for lions and tigers and housecats.
No, endangered species demonstrate that evolution acts on whole species populations as well as on individuals. If the species is no longer fit to survive and breed in its current habitat it has three options: mutation, migration, or death.
Mutation occurs by chance, and so it is not a "choice" but a "happy accident" -- sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. Flipping a coin sometimes lands on heads and sometimes it doesn't. The luck of the draw.
Migration can work IF there is a viable alternate ecology close at hand (there's that spacial\temporal matrix again), otherwise it ends up with ...
Death, by far the most frequent occurrence for species under high selection pressure: over 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct.
Mutations don’t occur often enough to make a difference, ...
A difference to what? The diversity of life? It would seem that the evidence is that mutations do occur often enough to contribute to the diversity of life.
... but if they did they would interfere with the processes that bring about new subspecies or breeds.
Wrong. Mutations enable speciation by differentiating isolated populations via developing new traits in each population that are not in the other.
No failure at all, it’s just a hard idea to grasp that this supposed replenishment only detracts from evolution. I’m going to have to spell out the whole scenario to try to make my point clear. I’ll then get to the rest of your post.
Wrong. It is easy to understand, but so are all the reasons that it is wrong. Repeating it will not make it clearer nor any more valid.
Here’s the gist: I’m using the example of what happens when a daughter population forms and becomes reproductively isolated from its parent population, because this particular example most clearly illustrates what evolution actually is. Evolution is really nothing but reproductive isolation of a subpopulation until it blends together into a distinctive new set of characteristics that set it apart from other populations of the same species.
Which are derived from mutations in the isolated populations that are not shared between populations.
Reproductive isolation makes it clear that the new phenotypes that emerge are due solely to the alleles shared by the individuals that make up the new population. ...
Which are derived from mutations in the isolated populations that are not shared with the other population.
... What creates the new phenotypes is the reduction of genetic diversity itself, due to the new gene frequencies shared among the individuals of the new population. ...
And the new mutations that develop beneficial traits in the new ecology.
... In any case there will be a new set of frequencies of all the alleles for all the traits of the species, brought about only by the isolation and inbreeding of a subset of individuals, ...
And by new mutations in each isolated population that are not share with the other population/s.
All these processes are subtractive processes. ...
Wrong. Mutation is additive, and it has been observed adding traits not in the parent population (black pocket mice).
... eventually blends together to create a new phenotypic appearance shared by the group as a whole that sets it apart from the parent population. In the process they lose the alleles for other traits that may have been in the original population.
And gain new ones via mutations that are not shared with the other population/s.
Wildebeests: Assuming the black type best represents the parent population although it’s just an assumption, some number of individuals at some point in the past migrated away from the main population’s location to a new habitat far enough away to prevent gene flow or interbreeding with the parent population. Over some number of generations this daughter population bred only among themselves with the group’s own shared set of gene frequencies different from the original population’s gene frequencies. They originally looked just like all the animals in the original population but their own set of gene frequencies would bring out new traits. So the new traits emerged and eventually blended into a recognizably different (sub)species of wildebeests, with a somewhat different body structure, different shaped horns, different coloring. It’s a distinctively different subspecies from the original population.
Due to mutations in body structure, horn shape and hide color.
All this illustrates how microevolution works. It’s a subtractive process, a matter of isolating a number of animals from the main population. That’s all it takes to produce new breeds or races of any sexually reproducing animal. In the process of developing the distinctive new set of traits, other traits are eliminated from the population. This is how reduction of genetic diversity must occur for evolution to occur.
Let me fix that for you:
All this illustrates how microevolution works. It’s an additive and subtractive process, a matter of isolating a number of animals from the main population. That’s all it takes to produce new breeds or races of any sexually reproducing animal. In the process of developing the distinctive new set of traits, some old traits are eliminated from the population and some new ones arise via mutation. This is how genetic diversity actually increases as evolution occurs.
... . Evolution, or the product ion of new phenotypes that come to characterize a new subpopulation or breed or race or subspecies, or species if you prefer, is the result of reproductive isolation of some individuals from the main population. That’s all it is, and it is that in all cases. If this isolation isn’t occurring, evolution isn’t occurring. You may get new phenotypes scattered within a population but you won’t get a new population with its own distinctive characteristics unless it is reproductively isolated from the other populations for enough generations to blend those characteristics into a distinctive recognizable species/supspecies.
Including the new traits derived from mutations that are not shared with the parent population.
Evolution is all subtractive, additive processes interfere with it:
Wrong. Evolution is additive when mutations provide new improved ability to survive and reproduce in a given ecology, it is subtractive when old traits are no longer good enough to ensure survival and reproduction in a new ecology, and they are displaced by the new traits.
I felt I had to spell all that out again because it’s only when it’s clear how microevolution produces a new species or subspecies that it becomes clear why mutation has no role in it.
Curiously spelling it out once again does not make any more valid. It is obvious that mutations play a role, the evidence is conclusive in that regard.
Gene flow interferes with these processes. The processes that produce new subpopulations are subtractive, gene flow is additive. Mutations are additive. They can only interfere with the processes that bring about evolution to a new subspecies.
Gene flow interferes with the process of speciation because the new mutations in each population are shared, not because of the mutations themselves. Only when different mutations occur in isolated populations do new species rise.
... Likewise if mutation occurred to enough of an extent to change traits within a group, to that extent the group would not be evolving into a new subpopulation ...
Let me rephrase that for you: If mutation occurred ... the group would not be evolving ... because it was evolving ... because it developed a different distribution of traits ... do I have that right?
... . If you have worked for decades to produce your ideal breed of dogs or cats or cattle or whatever, the last thing you want is for a trait that doesn’t belong to your ideal to show up. ...
Indeed, once you have arbitrarily selected random mutations in a population to use, and once that breed is recognized by an arbitrary standard, the last thing you want is change. Heaven forfend that your precious toy should jevolve.
Nature of course doesn’t care one way or another, but the same effect would occur in the wild too: mutations can only interfere with the development of a distinctive new subpopulation.
Wrong. Dog breeds only exist due to human interference with the process of evolution.
The processes of evolution necessarily diminish genetic diversity. ...
Wrong. Mutations add diversity. Documented, observed, objective empirical evidence.
This MUST happen or you are not getting evolution because the emergence of new phenotypes depends on eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. ...
... and the development of new alleles for new phenotypes via mutation.
... If instead you have gene flow of any kind to any extent at all, to that extent you are not getting evolution. ...
Except that you still have anagenesis. The breeding populations will continue to evolve. With gene flow they will evolve together, with genetic isolation they will evolve independently (ie cladogenesis). In both cases mutations will occur and selection will occur and the frequencies of alleles will change.
... but evolution would mean getting a whole new subpopulation in which the individuals all share the same characteristics. ...
Or in other words ... macroevolution of populations over several generations as new traits arise, old traits are displaced, and the population as a whole becomes distinctly different enough that we classify it as a new species ...
... That only happens with reproductive isolation of a subset of individuals and that requires reduction of genetic diversity.
Wrong. It requires that new traits due to mutations arise in each isolated population that are not compatible.
Sorry for so much repetition but it seems necessary because if this basic stuff isn’t understood there’s no way to make it clear why mutations can only interfere with evolution.
Curiously, repetition still fails to make the argument valid. Mutations occur, they are beneficial, they have led to new species -- this is observed fact.
There is no need to know the rate of mutation. Even one mutation that brought about one new trait would interfere with the processes that bring about evolution, meaning the formation of a distinctive new subspecies.
Wrong: black pocket mice.
I’m sure it’s merely a difference of opinion. ...
Wrong. It's a difference between looking objectively at the evidence, ALL the evidence and seeing what it says versus trying to cram evidence into a dogmatic preconception.
Diseases brought about by mutation are well recognized in the DNA; neutral mutations that don’t change the trait are also recognizable, but the evidence for viable beneficial alleles is so scanty you might as well say it doesn’t exist. This is assumed by the ToE, it is not evidenced.
Denial does not make that evidence go away. Never has, never will: evidence shows that beneficial mutations occur and have occurred often enough that we have new species and increased diversity.
ANY gain whatever interferes with the processes of evolution. ...
Wrong. Every gain IS evolution.
... Genetic diversity MUST be reduced in the process of bringing out new phenotypes. ...
Wrong. Genetic diversity must be altered in the process of brining out new phenotypes ... mostly by new mutations providing new traits that enhance survival and reproduction in a given ecology.
... Mutation theoretically could be the source of a particular allele that becomes incorporated in the new subspecies, but it would have to already be there and occur in high enough frequency for that to occur. ...
It only needs to occur in one individual that succeeds in surviving and breeding, and for the offspring to continue to benefit by surviving and breeding. Whether it is neutral or beneficial depends on the ecology. A neutral mutation can spread (via drift) because there is no selection pressure against it. A beneficial mutation will spread because it is beneficial - it improves suvival and breeding success -- and such traits will increase in frequency in the population because they are beneficial.
... In which case, as I keep saying, there is no difference between mutations and built-in alleles. For evolution to produce a new subspecies some have to be expressed and others suppressed or eliminated, it really doesn’t matter which. ...
Except for the minor detail that the new alleles will not be in the parent population that the new subspecies is differentiating from. Except for the minor detail that the parent population will also develop new alleles via new mutations that are not shared with the daughter population. Except for the minor detail that it is incompatibility between these new traits from one population to the other that result in genetic isolation.
... You don’t get a new subspecies unless low frequency traits don’t get expressed, or drop out of the population altogether. ...
And are displaced by new ones that provide better success at survival and breeding.
... In fact you will find that most discussions of how this works mention that low frequency alleles DO drop out of the population altogether. ...
As they are displaced by new ones that provide better success at survival and breeding, which is why they become low frequency traits.
All I’m adding to this is that it’s necessary for the formation of the characteristic traits of the new population, it’s HOW they form.
Wrong. You haven't added anything to how they form.
Your continuing to ask for numbers only demonstrates that you aren’t getting the idea here at all. ...
Wrong. It is because we "get" the idea and we "get" why it is wrong. Hiding behind pretending that we don't understand does not make your argument valid.
... I said what I meant: mutations of a beneficial sort don’t occur frequently enough to save the cheetah or the elephant seals. ...
What on earth makes you think that evolution has a "purpose" to "save" endangered species? Evolution acts on species in the same way that it acts on individuals: species that don't survive and reproduce die out and species that survive and reproduce continue to survive and reproduce.
You have gone to great lengths to discuss how evolution acts on subpopulations of species, so it should not be a surprise to you that it acts on the species as a whole as well.
We certainly know from the fossil evidence that 99%+ of the species that ever lived are extinct: these are species that failed to survive and breed.
...Why should they be thought to occur frequently enough to contribute anything to the genetic diversity of populations in general? ...
Because mutations have been observed causing speciation (cladogenesis) and long term changes in populations (anagenesis), and thus they have been observed adding diversity.
... But again, if they did then evolution wouldn’t be occurring at that point because evolution of new subspecies depends on reducing, not increasing, genetic diversity.
Wrong. Evolution of new subspecies depends on adding new traits ... via mutation.
I’m talking about new subspecies that are recognizably different subspecies. ...
Or in other words, macroevolution (as defined by science).
... These occur with the reduction or elimination of genetic diversity and not otherwise....
Wrong. New species only arise with genetic incompatibility, and that requires independent mutations that are not compatible between populations.
... Rate of change has nothing to do with it, the same processes have to occur or you aren’t getting a new subspecies, period. ...
Except that your argument depends entirely and unequivocally on reduction overpowering replacement\addition, which is a problem for you because it is false. So the rate of change plus and minus is important to your argument.
... Again, numbers are irrelevant. Even ONE mutation that brings out a new trait would interfere with the development of a new subspecies just as any gene flow of any kind would interfere. ...
Wrong. Mutations have been observed adding to diversity and causing speciation.
... It can slow down for a long long time, reality is messy, but actual evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity or it isn’t going to happen.
Wrong. Evolution occurs every day in every generation of every species, and it occurs via mutation and selection and drift. This is observed objective empirical fact.
Now if you persist in your misunderstanding all I can do is refer you back to this post. If you don’t get it you don’t get it.
As noted the problem is not misunderstanding you, the problem is that you are wrong. And whenever you repeat one of your argument and insist on ignoring reality, all I can do is refer you back to this post. If you don't get it you don't get it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : per comment

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1 by Faith, posted 10-11-2015 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 10-13-2015 5:23 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 50 of 259 (770755)
10-13-2015 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
10-12-2015 11:45 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
Nope, as I just laboriously proved. ...
You proved nothing other than repetition of failed arguments are still failed arguments.
As I just laboriously showed: see Message 49
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 9 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 51 of 259 (770756)
10-13-2015 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
10-13-2015 1:52 AM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
See Message 49
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 14 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 52 of 259 (770757)
10-13-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:37 AM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
The lack of genetic diversity. Duh.
Wrong. See Message 49
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 16 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 53 of 259 (770758)
10-13-2015 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
10-13-2015 9:53 AM


and Not understanding what evidence actually IS
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds. It used to be considered the definition of a pure breed that it had many fixed loci for its main characteristics. That condition has been recognized as leading to ill health so they no longer breed for fixed loci, but it remains the definition nevertheless. (The loss of genetic diversity occurs only where breeding is going on and a new phenotype is being developed. The rest of the population of, say, dogs, has plenty of genetic diversity among them all. This loss of genetic diversity is the product of evolution so it only occurs where evolution is occurring. It's the very processes of evolution that ultimately issue in genetic depletion down the particular line that is evolving, thus ultimately bringing to an end further ability to vary or evolve in that line.)
Actually the initial breed type is developed from new traits that arise by mutation in the general dog population, and which is then held in artificial stasis -- no addition and no loss.
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity result of population splits in the wild. (In the wild this is how new subspecies developed too, and spread out into many different geographic locations. Here too each new subspecies is the result of reduced genetic diversity which is necessary to bringing out new phenotypes. And here too ultimately, if daughter populations kept on forming from daughter populations the loss of genetic diversity would ultimately prevent further variation or evolution in that line too. The rest of the species could still have lots of genetic diversity. It's in the evolving line where it is lost. Evolution leads to loss of genetic diversity and ultimately inability to evolve further: Evolution defeats evolution. It can't happen beyond the point where the genetic fuel runs out. This is the natural end to which evolution always leads. You can start an infinite number of lines of evolution but if you continue to isolate new lines you will ultimately reach the point beyond which no further evolution is possible. There is no way to get from a reptile to a mammal: the reptile can only vary within its own genome and if it goes through many splits in reproductive isolation it will eventually produce some interesting variations on reptileness but also reach the point where it can't evolve further.
Wrong. See Message 49
Evidence: You can't get new phenotypes unless you get rid of alleles for other phenotypes. Breeders know this, it's the reason for preserving strict reproductive isolation.
Wrong. See Message 49
Evidence: Cheetah, unique cat with fixed loci, which is the end result of loss of genetic diversity in the formation of new species. It could be created by one drastic bottleneck or it could be created by a series of population splits occurring from each former daughter population.
See Message 49
Evidence: Pod Mrcaru lizards whose large heads and new digestive system formed within thirty years of reproductive isolation on an island where they had been released. Evidence of what happens by reproductive isolation alone over a short period of time. We can assume drastically reduced genetic diversity from the simple fact that only five pairs of lizards were the founding population. It's possible this population has run out of genetic diversity for further evolution. The only way to find out for sure would be to take another set of pairs out of this new population and isolate them on another island.
See Message 49
Evidence: Jutland cattle evolved four different races or species by reproductive isolation alone over a very short period of time. Evolution works fast. It creates new subspecies by eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. The four different subspecies of cattle in this case may still possess sufficient genetic diversity for further evolution. or they may not.
See Message 49
This is how evolution works. It works by reproductive isolation of a portion of the alleles that exist in a species. This is how you get new subspecies that differ phenotypically from other populations of the same species. Each separated reproductively isolated population forms because of its reduced genetic diversity. Reduced genetic diversity is essential to evolution of new subspecies, but it also leads to a condition beyond which no further evolution is possible for lack of the very genetic diversity that makes evolution possible.
Wrong. See Message 49
None of your "evidence" demonstrates a reduction of genetic diversity. If anything it demonstrates an increase in diversity because of mutations introducing new traits not in the parent population.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 20 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 259 (770759)
10-13-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
10-13-2015 3:40 PM


Re: Another Issue to Focus On
Dr Adequate writes:
Dr Adquate's Message 41 is another good issue. Discussion could explore the mechanisms required to produce the genomes and genomic diversity we observe in nature today from a 2 or 14 creature bottleneck around 4500 years ago.
Why is that an opinion of Admin rather than Percy?
I thought it was a sort of general outline of your issue from Message 41 et al, not my own opinion. If I misstated what you were saying then my apologies, and please correct.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 259 (770760)
10-13-2015 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
10-13-2015 4:23 PM


Re: And around we go on the merry-go-round: Faith fails to grab the brass ring again ...
You don't get a new breed without mutations, and you can't maintain that breed without eliminating any new mutations.
In my view, at least the first half of this sentence could use some explaining. 'Breeds' are so poorly defined that some 'breeds' might well be formed simply by separating out some recessive variations from some parent species. At least that seems to be the case for me.
The second half of the statement I have no problem with.
ABE:
Perhaps your point is that the source of essentially all alleles we are ever likely to investigate are mutations.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 5:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 56 of 259 (770761)
10-13-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
10-13-2015 5:23 PM


Re: And around we go on the merry-go-round: Faith fails to grab the brass ring again ...
In my view, at least the first half of this sentence could use some explaining. 'Breeds' are so poorly defined that some 'breeds' might well be formed simply by separating out some recessive variations from some parent species. ...
Well I could nit-pick and say that at some point that recessive variation came about because of mutations since the division of {dogs} from {grey wolves}, but to determine that we would need a genetic cladogram.
And then we could discuss when is a "breed" a "breed" and when is it just a type of dog, ie a hound dog or a sheep dog -- dogs bred for purpose other than show.
The point is that Faith is wrong in saying it is ONLY through loss of genetic diversity, so I will change that to:
"Many new breeds are developed from mutations that occur, ... "
IIRC several of these mutations were documented by DrA.
Thank you for your input.
The problem Faith has is that she is partly correct and partly incorrect, and it isn't necessary to show that she is always wrong, just that her position is either wrong or incomplete -- omitting the role mutations in the increase of genetic diversity means at best her argument is incomplete, and that her reliance on genetic loss as the only mechanism is plainly wrong.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 55 by NoNukes, posted 10-13-2015 5:23 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 57 of 259 (770770)
10-13-2015 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
10-13-2015 1:11 PM


you make your assertions, mine are better
The "doing real science" part involves finding actual evidence for one's imaginings. Where's yours? What experiments are you proposing to test your hypothesis? Just offering a "different explanation" for the existing evidence is not "doing real science".
Nobody does science with evolution as I keep saying. You make assumptions and pile them up and call them science. Einstein did real science others could verify. All that is done with evolution is imagine things you can't prove and get others to agree with your delusion
You imagine that mutations are the source of alleles. There is no evidence, just assumption, weird weird assumption considering the utter lack of evidence that mutations are anything but a destructive accident that happens to DNA.
You imagine that the fossils show genetic descent from lower to higher and call it fact though it's mere assumption. It's genetically impossible for starters, and if it took all those millions of years nothing would be left alive. Evolution from the animals on the ark to today's broad array of life forms is just a few thousand years. Pretty effective evolution in a few thousand years. But of course it's all variations built into the genome of each creature, beyond which evolution is impossible as I keep proving.
You imagine the human eye evolving from some completely unknown and unevidenced line of visual capacities that you make up from separate designs you find scattered all over the Linnaean tree. There is not a shred of actual evidence that that's possible, it's all imagined.
You imagine the reptilian ear evolved into the mammalian ear increment by increment over millions of years, shrinking this part, moving that part, reshaping that one. That's so funny I fall down laughing at it.
Reptiles couldn't evolve into mammals, it's genetically impossible. Evolution varies each separate creature in interesting ways from the genetic material in its own DNA and that's all it does.
You imagine hominids and treat them as facts and demand that everybody else do too.
You imagine landscapes made up of single sediments in flat slabs covering large areas of the earth during million year periods with a very limited selection of dead things buried in the sediment you imagine lived during that period. That's hilariously sad to think the surface of the earth ever looked like that.
By offering a different explanation for the existing evidence I'm doing more than evolution "science" does, but I've also done more than just offering a different explanation. Message 20's list of evidence really is evidence for my argument. It takes true dunderheadedness not to recognize that you have to lose genetic diversity to get new breeds, races, subspecies etc. after I've spelled out the known evidence for it, and that message would lead you out of dunderheadedness into the pure bright light of knowledge if you'd just let it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-13-2015 1:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 8:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 10-14-2015 11:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 71 by Capt Stormfield, posted 10-14-2015 1:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 72 by Blue Jay, posted 10-14-2015 1:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 259 (770771)
10-13-2015 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:06 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
Nobody does science with evolution as I keep saying.
Perhaps just for a change you could be wrong about something else.
* crap you made up snipped *
But Faith, that's crap you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:06 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 59 of 259 (770772)
10-13-2015 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
10-13-2015 3:44 PM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
Could you have that translated into Latin and then sung by a choir of monks in plainchant while they burn a witch?
I might be able to arrange that. I'll have them serenade you every night for a month at your bedroom window. That's a lot of dead witches of course but I'm sure you'll find it entertaining.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 60 of 259 (770774)
10-13-2015 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by JonF
10-13-2015 11:48 AM


Re: No lack of evidence
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds.
In your opinion. {citation required for the loss being necessary; that's what you are trying to prove.}
It is proved by the practices of breeders. If that isn't obvious there's something wrong with your thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 10-13-2015 11:48 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 7:50 AM 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