|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But also, it seems that mostly you can't get new phenotypes unless you have new alleles. This is the usual imagined thing. It's false. There are plenty of alleles in any genetically diverse population, no new ones are needed. It's when you have population splits that isolate a portion of the population which then has new gene frequencies, allowing formerly low-frequency alleles to emerge in the phenotype, and formerly higher frequency alleles to fade away or be eliminated, that's when you get the new phenotypes.
A more important point is that unlike the obsolete methods abandoned by breeders, natural selection was never interested in making every member of a species or sub-species as alike as possible. Indeed, since doing so, as you admit, leads to ill health, natural selection would act against this. I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. It's much more benign a process than natural selection but very effective at creating new subspecies. So you are taking these deprecated breeding methods as a model for natural selection when both observation and principle tells us that it isn't.
The fact is that over many generations you do get a new subspecies made up of individuals that have the same characteristics. That's just what inbreeding within a limited gene pool does. That's how you get different breeds of cattle for instance. That's how you get the very homogeneous populations of different wildebeests, the blue and the black. Making a population all alike isn't what threatens the health of the creature, it's severe cases of depleted genetic diversity that causes that. You can get a homogeneous population without such drastic genetic depletion. Pure breeds, however, always were defined as having fixed loci, that genetically depleted condition. It's the only guarantee of a pure breed. The cheetah is understood to have been the result of a bottleneck. But a series of population splits would end up creating the same genetic situation in the end. The creature may survive or not. The elephant seal seems to be surviving and proliferating in a condition of genetic depletion. You don't need mutation for any of the scenarios I've given. All you need is the isolation of a portion of the gene pool over generations. This ought to be intuitively obvious but I realize the ToE has a stranglehold on most of the minds here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This is the usual imagined thing. It's been observed, Faith. I gave you six examples, remember? Whereas you gave no examples of your fantasy version of genetics.
I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. Reproductive isolation also has no interest in producing a homogeneous breed.
Making a population all alike isn't what threatens the health of the creature, it's severe cases of depleted genetic diversity that causes that. A distinction without a difference.
You don't need mutation for any of the scenarios I've given. And yet since mutation exists, any realistic scenario would involve it at some point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It is? I thought that drift and differing selective pressures were the main cause. There may be a Founder Effect, especially if the new sub-population is small, but otherwise isolation mainly removes the homogenising effect of gene flow.
quote: Pure breeds are mainly defined by phenotype and ancestry, not any genetic analysis. And a good genetic analysis would probably allow more diversity than is actually present in many.
quote: The state of the cheetah's genes is the result of a serious bottleneck (compounded by a more recent bottleneck). The idea that modern cheetahs are so different in phenotype from their pre-bottleneck ancestors that they could be considered a distinct breed is something I've only heard from you. Do you have any evidence ?Further, in the case of the elephant seals the bottleneck occurred in historic time. If they are so phenotypically distinct from their pre-bottleneck ancestors it should be relatively easy to discover. Have you any evidence that they are ? quote: That's something of a red herring. Evolutionary science (and it is science despite all your nasty lying) is not and cannot be limited to dealing with your scenarios. Mutations will occur despite the fact that you don't like them, they are likely needed for much of the non-geographic reproductive isolation that we see. Consider the fact that dog breeds still have to be artificially isolated to prevent outbreeding. Mutations will be more important in the wild than in the artificial world of breeding, and really even breeders take advantage of useful mutations, and will likely ignore mutations that don't get in the way of their objectives. So really, you still don't have a case. Even your chosen model - poor as it is - fails to support you. Bluster and bullying your way past the objections didn't work before, and starting a new thread just to repeat the same failed tactics hardly seems worthwhile. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is proved by the practices of breeders. If that isn't obvious there's something wrong with your thinking. Wrong. See Message 49 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. It's much more benign a process than natural selection but very effective at creating new subspecies. The fact is that over many generations you do get a new subspecies made up of individuals that have the same characteristics. That's just what inbreeding within a limited gene pool does. That's how you get different breeds of cattle for instance. That's how you get the very homogeneous populations of different wildebeests, the blue and the black. Making a population all alike isn't what threatens the health of the creature, it's severe cases of depleted genetic diversity that causes that. You can get a homogeneous population without such drastic genetic depletion. Pure breeds, however, always were defined as having fixed loci, that genetically depleted condition. It's the only guarantee of a pure breed. The cheetah is understood to have been the result of a bottleneck. But a series of population splits would end up creating the same genetic situation in the end. The creature may survive or not. The elephant seal seems to be surviving and proliferating in a condition of genetic depletion. You don't need mutation for any of the scenarios I've given. All you need is the isolation of a portion of the gene pool over generations. This ought to be intuitively obvious but I realize the ToE has a stranglehold on most of the minds here. And still wrong. See Message 49 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nobody does science with evolution as I keep saying. ... And you keep being wrong. I'm going to move this here so you can waste bandwidth on it on your thread and not mess up another:
Message 181 on How long does it take to evolve? thread: SO inspiring the intoning of the Liturgy of Science Worship. There probably are sciences that fit the description, but evolution sure doesn't, being nothing but imaginations piled on imaginations. For one thing there's nothing you can replicate, all you can do is interpret. Since all you can do is interpret there is no way to falsify it. Someone may disagree with your interpretation and that's the extent of it. If you have the power your interpretation wins.
(1) Make an observation: mammals have ears, reptiles have ears, there are differences (2) Do background research: look at all existing known fossils (3) Form an hypothesis: mammal ears evolved from reptilian type ears (4) Make a prediction: fossils should occur\be found showing intermediate stages of ear evolution (5) Test the prediction: fossils are found showing intermediate stages (6) Is the hypothesis invalidated: nope (7) Publish: see literature on this subject (8) Are the results replicated: yes, more intermediate fossils are found We can go through example after example after example and show you this same process applied time and again. Evolution makes predictions, those prediction are tested, the results are published (there are whole journals dedicated to publishing those results because there are so many). You can wail and scream and gnash your teeth Faith, but evolution IS science, and evolutionists DO science. You don't like it? Tough. You are not a scientist or in a position to criticize science.
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. Wrong. See Message 49. There is objective empirical evidence. There are published studies. They have been replicated.
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. Wrong. See Message 49. Repetition doesn't stop your argument from being wrong.
You imagine hominids and treat them as facts and demand that everybody else do too. Wrong. We have fossils, they ARE hominids by definition of the term hominid, and you cannot change that. There are also studies and predictions and papers published on the results in the scientific journals.
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. Wrong. That is what the evidence shows. In particular it shows the gradual accumulation of sediments over time, due to the way life forms are trapped in the layers, particularly rooted life forms. The layers show a portion of the spatial\temporal matrix that forms the natural history of this planet. The life forms show a sequence of development that is explained by higher versions evolving from lower versions. Foraminifera is but one example of such development over thousands of years of sedimentary accumulation. Again there are studies and predictions and papers published on the results in the scientific journals.
By offering a different explanation for the existing evidence I'm doing more than evolution "science" does, ... Except that you have not done any science, all you have done is make up stuff and ignore contrary evidence. Evidence contradicts Faith's argumentFaith: the evidence is wrong, it's just imagined Science: Faith is wrong, as demonstrated by fact And you won't be doing science until you are able to reach the conclusion that you are wrong when the evidence shows you are wrong.
... 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. And you are still Wrong. See Message 49. We understand you, but we also understand why, how, and where you are wrong, and as a result we do not accept your argument as anything more than your personal dogmatic fantasy. One you keep repeating over and over and over with no more evidence and no more validity than the first time, the second time, the third time, ... the ad nauseumteenth time. But hey, repeat it again and see if you get a different response ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. It's much more benign a process than natural selection but very effective at creating new subspecies. The fact is that over many generations you do get a new subspecies made up of individuals that have the same characteristics. That's just what inbreeding within a limited gene pool does. That's how you get different breeds of cattle for instance. That's how you get the very homogeneous populations of different wildebeests, the blue and the black. This is just my personal impression, but is it even reasonable to cite the effects of a dog breeding program as evidence of the effect of isolation separately from selection? Because surely dog breeders don't just isolate dogs when creating a breed. They select, then isolate, and then select again among the offspring. How is it even possible to look at the result and claim that the result is evidence strictly of isolation and inbreeding? Not sure that this is a new point, but new or old, it certainly casts a huge amount of doubt on this process as evidence for Faith's proposal. Beyond that, the distinction of the process from natural selection pretty much dooms the argument anyway. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Quite so. As I pointed out, dog breeders try to produce a homogeneous breed. Reproductive isolation doesn't. And natural selection "tries" not to insofar as this is harmful to the gene pool.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're the one who is imagining things - but you can't even get anybody to agree with your delusion. All that is done with evolution is imagine things you can't prove and get others to agree with your delusion Evolution is verified scientifically. You're the one who isn't actually doing science. You "propose" experiments but until somebody actually does them and confirms your hypothesis, you can not assume that your hypothesis is true.
Faith writes:
Well, you're certainly doing something that's different from science, something that isn't science.
By offering a different explanation for the existing evidence I'm doing more than evolution "science" does.... Faith writes:
So why is it that you're the only person on earth who isn't a dunderhead?
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is just my personal impression, but is it even reasonable to cite the effects of a dog breeding program as evidence of the effect of isolation separately from selection? ... The major difference is that in founder effect type isolation mutations occur and have a high probability of survival due to low numbers, this leads to rapid(er) development of new phenotypes that are then tested by natural selection for survival and breeding success. In breeding programs mutations occur, but there is zero chance of mutations being allowed to propagate in order to preserve the "type" ... and the reason that Faith likes it is because the inbreeding and elimination of mutations fits her premise.
... Because surely dog breeders don't just isolate dogs when creating a breed. They select, then isolate, and then select again among the offspring. ... They only allow select individuals to breed in every generation, and try to create a single phenotype with a limited gene pool. In terms of evolution the selection pressure is extremely high because only one phenotype survives generation to generation.
... How is it even possible to look at the result and claim that the result is evidence strictly of isolation and inbreeding? Well it is ... but it is a very sever artificial construct that perverts natural processes. It is an enforced stasis.
Not sure that this is a new point, but new or old, it certainly casts a huge amount of doubt on this process as evidence for Faith's proposal. Old old old. As I said, Faith likes because: disease and reduced viability. Which she (presumptively) attributes to loss of genetic diversity. It fits her fantasy, so it must be what really happens (in her mind).
Beyond that, the distinction of the process from natural selection pretty much dooms the argument anyway. Plus the high acceptance\survival of new mutations in founding populations or post bottleneck populations. It was long hypothesized that when populations were decimated that the remaining forms would undergo more rapid evolution than is observed in mature niche filled ecosystems. When the foraminifera record was examined for the post K-Pg (K-t) extinction event recovery, that pattern of rapid growth was observed and then it tapered off as the available niches filled. E.O.Wilson also did a study where he denuded several small islands and then observed the recovery, and he found that while different species may colonize the island - such as different species of breeding birds - that the same basic matrix of life forms developed with the proportions of the species returning to the previous mix proportions. This too had rapid early colonization and then a tapering of species trying to establish footholds. Then there is the whole field of island biogeography ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...you have to lose genetic diversity to get new breeds... Have you actually thought about what the word "new" implies with respect to the word "diversity"? Is this kind of the same as Toyota having fewer models to sell when they introduce a new one? No, wait, that wouldn't work unless they quit making some number of the existing models when they introduced a new one. When a new breed of animals is selected for, do they kill all the previous ones? Isn't this just a variation of "why are there still monkeys"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Faith
This thread is already progressing pretty rapidly, so I was going to stay out of it to keep the clutter down, but I really want to comment on one point:
Faith writes: Nobody does science with evolution as I keep saying. You make assumptions and pile them up and call them science. This was part of the discussion that you and I had all those years ago: you’re using the word assumption wrong (see my Message 32 for the last time I explained this). When you observe a mutation that results in a different genotype and a concomitant new phenotype, as Hallett and Maxwell did way back in 1991, then you have evidence that mutations create new alleles. After that, if you then observe a new allele elsewhere, and attribute it to mutation, it is not an assumption. It’s a hypothesis, because it’s based on evidence. The evidence it’s based on is the verified observation of mutations causing new alleles. Does this mean that every allele necessarily originated from a mutation? No, of course not: there could be other mechanisms. We could propose that the newly-observed allele was created via spontaneous generation from free-floating nucleotides, and was not inherited from the parent organism at all. This proposal would be an assumption, because we do not currently have evidence that alleles can be spontaneously generated from free-floating nucleotides. We prefer to avoid unjustified assumptions, so we currently explain all alleles as the products of mutation. Admittedly, we could be wrong, but I find the evidence rather compellingly in favor of the theory that mutation alone explains all alleles. I guess time and more data will tell for sure, but until then, what else can I do beside accept what the evidence currently indicates to me? Do you understand why I believe that mutations are justified hypotheses, whereas spontaneous generation and Intelligent Design are unjustified assumptions?-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since nobody is saying anything relevant or even intelligent with respect to my OP, I might as well comment on whatever catches my attention at the moment. Such as this totally ridiculous irrelevant and ignorant one:
...you have to lose genetic diversity to get new breeds...
Have you actually thought about what the word "new" implies with respect to the word "diversity"? Have you thought for half a second about what I said in the OP? Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? Do you know that if you change gene frequencies so that blue eyes which were high frequency in the original population are low frequency in the daughter population, and purple eyes that showed up extremely rarely are now high frequency in the new population, that now after many generations of recombination of the new gene frequencies the new population will be characterized by all purple eyes? NEW phenotype brought about by eliminating the alleles for the OLD phenotype. The blue eyes of course remain in the old population, but being extremely low frequency in the new would drop out altogether after a few generations. But we do now have a brand new population with pretty purple eyes because we eliminated the alleles for blue eyes and other colors too. By random selection purple eyes come to be characteristic of this new subspecies, just as if somebody intentionally selected for purple eyes in creating a domestic breed. Get it? Oh of course not. I waste my breath here.
Is this kind of the same as Toyota having fewer models to sell when they introduce a new one? No, wait, that wouldn't work unless they quit making some number of the existing models when they introduced a new one. When a new breed of animals is selected for, do they kill all the previous ones? Isn't this just a variation of "why are there still monkeys"? Yawn. It would be nice if I could erase all the dumb posts in the thread but I guess they have to remain. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The ASSUMPTION, Blue Jay, that is held by believers in the ToE, does not have that rational a source as you posit. It's simply the assumption that ALL alleles in ALL genomes were formed by mutation because the theory of evolution requires it. It IS an assumption.
And besides, the fact that extremely rarely you get a beneficial result from a mutation, what, even involving the exchange of one disease condition for another (sickle cell versus malaria) and only FOUR times out of billions? cannot possibly be any basis for attributing the formation of normal alleles to what is otherwise known as mistake which is most frequently a destructive disease-causing mistake. Once in a great while even the mistake of mutation could by a fluke create a viable arrangement of the DNA in spite of its destructive intentions. As it were., Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I guess that actually answering the relevant and valid criticisms is too much for you. Lying: the creationist answer to everything
quote: I guess that you have your usual problems understanding reality. Purple eyes would only be a new phenotype if they were completely absent from the original population. And eliminating other colours is simply not guaranteed to bring a new colour of eye into existence.
quote: What did you expect? Did you really think that everybody would suddenly forget the objections to your argument ? Did you really think that arrogant bluster and lies would be enough of an answer? Are you just too lazy to try to patch up the holes, or did you try and fail ?
quote: You could. You wrote them. But it would be very bad form, Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tags (thanks RAZD - the perils of using a tablet to post)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024