|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Faith's argument has failed again and again because she cannot deal with the fact that mutations necessarily replenish genetic diversity.
As I pointed out long ago she needs to show the rate at which alleles are lost must exceed the rate of gain. She never produced the numbers, as she must do if her argument is to work
quote: Examples have already been provided in earlier threads, so this is an outright lie.
quote: Again, as pointed out long ago, so long as the rate of gain balances the rate of loss diversity will remain constant. The idea that diversity must inevitably diminish if there is any loss - no matter the rate of gain is utterly and obviously ridiculous. We need the numbers.
quote: I think Faith means that if mutations occurred at a rate sufficient to explain existing genetic diversity - if her belief in a young Earth, Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood were all true (instead of being the myths that they are). Nevertheless, her claim is empty until she produces the numbers to back it up..
quote: Again, there are no numbers here, nothing that supports the claim that no subspecies could form. If the rate of change is slow enough, if there is stabilising selection and gene flow there is no reason to think that distinctive local variants of a form could not exist. All but the first claim are based on numbers that are never produced. Where are the numbers, Faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: As usual Faith confuses disagreement with a failure to understand. In fact she is the one who fails to understand the simple point that if new alleles are added as fast as alleles are lost, net diversity will remain the same. That should be an easy concept to grasp but apparently it is completely beyond Faith.
quote: The evidence does not support this claim. Which is just a foolish assumption based on the idea that dog breeding sums up the whole of evolution. And even then ignoring the fact that dog breeding itself has made use of mutations.
quote: And the dynamics of a short term artificial enterprise cannot be assumed to be identical to those of the longer term processes found in nature. Especially when the results seem to differ. It is not only subspecies that need to be accounted for, but the whole branching tree of life. Indeed, subspecies are not artificial breeds, are not bred with the aim of producing a particular form and are generally not isolated from other populations.
quote: That is, of course, a claim about the supposedly irrelevant numbers. How often do mutations occur ? How often would be often enough ? And how often is needed to prevent the formation of subspecies ? It seems that the numbers are very relevant.
quote: In reality it is hard to support such a claim as you ought to remember. We have gone over this, and there has been no sign that you understood it - or even tried to. And that hasn't changed. There is still no explanation of how an additive process would "interfere". All there seems to be is the assumption that all the traits found in the newly formed species - through the entirety of it's existence - must have been present in the parent population. That isn't even true of the domestic species used as examples of breeding. Adding new variations will not stop the new subspecies - or rather species - from evolving. How could it ? It's not as if mutations will automatically reverse the course of selection and drift.restoring lost variations. But if the new variations are new, and so long as the subspecies has some distinctive traits where is the interference ?
quote: Don't be ridiculous. That's not even true in domestic breeding. The mutation responsible for the short legs of dachshunds did not turn dogs back into wolves, nor did the mutation that produced the Scottish fold cat cause the domestic cat to revert to it's wild ancestry. It's not hard to understand, it's just obviously false.
quote: The coat colour in pocket mice is one example, as you ought to remember.
quote: It's clear that mutations don't occur at a rate that would prevent the existence of stable species. But that really isn't the same as the rate required to maintain genetic variation over the long term. And the evidence really does favour the idea that genetic variation is maintained over the long term, in those species that survive and prosper.
quote: Again, obviously false. Even if the diversity of one gene is being reduced other genes may gain new variations without interfering at all. And again I will repeat a point made long ago. Once a new species has formed what is to stop it gaining new variations ? The new variations cannot prevent something that has already occurred. They will not automatically revert the new species to the parent form. How then can they be considered to "interfere"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Completely untrue. i understand the argument fine. It's just that you have not and obviously cannot answer the objections. Most importantly, how do new variation, added by mutation interfere in the production of sub-species and new species ? You keep refusing to answer. If YOU understand it, why can't you give any explanation ? I'Ve given reasons why it won't and you just keep on making the same claim.
quote: So you think that your assumed "lack of genetic diversity" somehow stops mutations adding to genetic diversity. How can even you believe that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
And yet again you fail to answer my points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You do realise that that makes no sense? Adding genetic variety to the new sub-population will make it more different from the parent population. That would surely be a step towards speciation, if only a small one.
quote: A misunderstood and poor analogy. The breeder only cares about eliminating unwanted variations. Others may be wanted or irrelevant. The same is true in natural evolution - except that natural evolution has no idea of a final form and is even more likely than a breeder to embrace suitable variations. So no, the idea of a closed-minded breeder who simply will not tolerate any new variations - even those he is unaware of - is not even an accurate description of breeders, let alone a good analogy for speciation. Even more, because of the longer timescales (and because successful species grow to have large populations) natural evolution has much more chance to incorporate new variations into the population. And that you have never answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I did read what you wrote. I pointed out why it was wrong - it isn't even true that breeders care about reducing diversity that doesn't interfere with desired traits. a falsehood is hardly a great basis for an argument. I know that you assume that speciation requires a reduction in genetic diversity. I also know that it is at best misleading. And I've explained why and only got the response that you don't want to consider it. Why don't you go away really think about your argument and see if you can really answer the objections. If you can't don't bother posting about it again. You're just wasting everybody's time by refusing to seriously discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Faith, raising valid objections IS discussion, even if you cannot answer them. Brushing them off with accusations that they "do not get it" - with no explanation at all is an evasion.
It seems that your idea of "discussion" is mindless agreement. To you, dissent, no matter how cogent is automatically wrong simply because it IS dissent. That's a really poor attitude here, and one directly opposed to the search for truth.
quote: And that is an outright lie. You have never, for instance, given any reason to think that breeders would reject new variations that do not interfere with their plans - or even that they would determinedly look for such variations if they were not easily apparent. And yet your argument depends on evolution having to do that. But if breeders succeed in producing new breeds without doing that, why is it necessary? You don't say. if you want to disagree just provide a quote which addresses it and a reference to the message which contains the quote. Don't just throw unsubstantiated accusations as has become your habit. And let us not forget that you refuse to even consider what happens between speciation events, even though speciation events comprise a small part of a species existence. How can you rebut arguments by refusing to discuss them ? Lying is not the answer, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Let us imagine that a species has become genetically homogenous, with only one allele per locus. Can it still evolve? If the answer is "yes" Faith's argument is disproven.
Even if we neglect stabilising selection and neutral drift, there is still the possibility if a beneficial mutation occurring in the species and starting to spread through the population by selection. Evolution, even in that case, would not stop, only be slowed to the rate at which beneficial mutations arrived. Faith's argument has many other flaws, but even neglecting them it still fails.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Go back and read your OP. It's perfectly clear what it claims, and perfectly clear that I have successfully refuted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
to avoid side trails, I'm simply responding to her claim that I haven't refuted her argument. As for the rest, I think it worth seeing how she responds. Clarification will be coming, but the form is yet to be decided depending on Faith"s response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Faith, I would like to congratulate you on actually making a productive post which better explains your position.
So here's something to think about. Wolves are not a hitch-potch of different phenotypes. Yet - even if you allow a role for mutations they must contain a good deal of the genetic variability that leads to the huge variety of the different breeds of dogs. Doesn't this show that genetic variation does not automatically produce your "hotch-potch" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
But quite obviously you are incorrect.
There's nothing in your argument that shows that adding alleles interferes with evolution at all. Even more, as I have explained to you most of the additions will be after the speciation event, when the population is growing and when it is large (the first because selection is relaxed, the second because mutations occur with each birth - a larger population means more births, means more mutations) I ask again, how can mutations that occur after the process of speciation is complete possibly interfere in the process of speciation ? How can you even imagine that it is possible ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
The problem remains. The genetic diversity is certainly there but this state of "motley phenotypes" is not observed. All you've produced is what you call "mental conjuring", and in this case it is at odds with the evidence.
Let me make a basic point again. Natural species are not the same as artificial breeds. Even in the rare cases where genetic diversity has been seriously reduced by extreme bottlenecks the selective element that produces breeds is missing. The only case where you might get a collection of mixed and diverging phenotypes is adaptive radiation, where a species splits multiple ways. However this requires weak selection and multiple open niches in the ecosystem. In general there is no reason to expect any "motley effect". Instead you should expect to see a slow piecemeal accumulation of change. Which really is much like dog breeding as it actually occurred. Breeders didn't find a new breed suddenly appearing - each breed was developed over a period of time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024