Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 259 (770842)
10-14-2015 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
10-14-2015 3:22 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
"quote" not "quite" right ...

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 75 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2015 3:22 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 259 (770843)
10-14-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
10-14-2015 3:13 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
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.
Faith, we see new alleles being created by mutations. We don't see species being poofed into existence by God. So the "assumption" you complain of would be like "assuming" that a chocolate egg was made in a chocolate factory rather than laid by the Easter Bunny.
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.,
You want another run at that paragraph?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 259 (770844)
10-14-2015 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
10-13-2015 2:55 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Admin writes:
Discussion seems to be unraveling somewhat, but Tangle just posted Message 39 about diverging populations that should help discussion refocus. In past discussions Faith has claimed that over time two isolated populations would diverge but not speciate, though they would eventually lose the ability to interbreed, which is the definition of speciation. Perhaps discussion can resume around resolving this apparent contradiction.
So for reference, this is what Tangle said in Message 39:
Tangle writes:
The point you consistently then avoid/ignore/dismiss is that after divergence, for a speciation event to occur, the two diverged populations MUST add more genetic variety. If they didn't the two diverged populations would remain unchanged, speciation doesn't occur and the combined genetic variance in both populations would be as it was in the original population - ie no overall loss, just two geographically seperate organisms of the same species.
Geddit?
I don't think Percy even guddit.
That is one of the most confused ridiculous irrelevant statements I've ever encountered in this discussion. I'm supposed to take that seriously? I guess so. I guess this is the confused ridiculous irrelevant level everybody is thinking on. Sad sad sad. What IS the point.?
First of all I only started this thread because Percy doesn't want me stating my position in other threads. I really have no interest in debating it for the umpteenth time. I know it's true and I don't need the ridiculous irrelevant unthinking arguments against it. I might as well go watch something on Netflix. Which I may after I answer this one.
SO. Groan.
...after divergence, for a speciation event to occur, the two diverged populations MUST add more genetic variety.
First, let's be clear that I haven't mentioned "speciation" in anything I've said so far. When I say subspecies are created by the loss of genetic diversity I'm not necessarily saying that breeding with the original population has become impossible, which is what the term "speciation" implies. This MAY occur at some point as they diverge genetically through generations of recombination in REPRODUCTIVE isolation, which may be enforced by nothing more than simple geographic distance from each other. I really don't think it matters one way or the other to the idea that a new subspecies has been created. Just as in dog breeding reproductive isolation may be artificially enforced to protect the genetic substrate of the breed, there is no reason in nature there has to be a complete NATURAL loss of ability to interbreed with other populations, whether by genetic mismatch or mere sexual preference or whatever the cause. Again, it MIGHT happen, but there's nothing special about it if it does. That's why I don't talk in terms of "speciation." It's a completely artificial category. You can get new subspecies all the time without losing interbreeding ability, and losing it doesn't make it any more a species than any of the others. What makes it a subspecies is its different overall characteristics from the others. Black wildebeests, blue wildebeests. They're observably different. They are separate (sub)soecies whether they can interbreed or not.
ANYWAY.
...after divergence, for a speciation event to occur, the two diverged populations MUST add more genetic variety.
Absolutely false.
Adding genetic variety can only PREVENT speciation.
Think of speciation in terms of a breeder establishing a breed. Does the breeder want more genetic variety? Of course not, that only prevents getting the breed. The genetic variety has to be reduced to the particular characteristics the breeder desires.
Why would adding genetic variety produce a new species in Nature either then? Adding genetic variety will get you a motley population with many different characteristics based on many different genotypes, many of which may certainly be able to interbreed with individuals of other populations of the same species. That's not speciation. It may be a desirable situation for the sake of the creature's health but it's not speciation. Speciation occurs when you have a homogeneous population that can not interbreed with other (sub)species of its kind.
If they didn't the two diverged populations would remain unchanged, speciation doesn't occur and the combined genetic variance in both populations would be as it was in the original population - ie no overall loss, just two geographically seperate organisms of the same species.
If you would only carefully read and understand my OP you couldn't possibly say something this ridiculous.
ANY two populations that diverge from an original population will have different gene frequencies from each other and from the original population. It's highly improbable (though I suppose not absolutely impossible) for the gene frequencies to remain the same, because the diverging individuals form two random groups. If gene A has 60% frequency in the original population and gene B is at 30% and gene C at 10%, what is the probability that those exact frequencies would stay the same in the two separate populations after divergence? It's possible for one of the new populations to get something like 20% A, 20% B and 60% C. The other would get mostly A, less B than in the original and no C at all.
In any case the two divergent populations are going to have VERY different gene frequencies and therefore will produce a different range of phenotypes from one another. If they are reproductively isolated from each other and others of the same species and go on to recombine their separate gene frequencies over generations to the point of recognizably diverging phenotypically from one another, then you may get speciation of one or both populations.
The point I keep making is that for this to happen requires the reduction of genetic diversity, meaning in this case the low frequency alleles, and as is often said in discussions about how population genetics works, low frequency alleles most often drop out of the population altogether. You get two new daughter populations built on the loss of the characteristics of the other population. (I may not be getting all the percentages sorted out properly here but I hope the gist is clear.)
In any case you'll get two distinctive subspecies whether or not they can still interbreed after many generations. If they can't that's what you call speciation, but it's a pretty artificial idea in reality since you can have lots of subspecies that are genetically capable of interbreeding though they may not in fact do so. Around the ring of a series of "ring species" some can still interbreed, some can't, they're all called "species" though to be accurate they are really subspecies, all subspecies of greenish warblers perhaps of the overall species of greenish warblers. Each of the separate (sub)species has its own unique phenotypic characteristics from all the others, and what I'm trying to get across is that each is formed from the former population by losing the genetic basis of the characteristics of the former populations so that new ones can emerge from the lower frequency alleles. This can continue from daughter population to daughter population, adding new phenotypes while losing genetic diversity until genetic diversity may run out completely in the last population to form.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 10-13-2015 2:55 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2015 4:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 10-14-2015 7:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 79 of 259 (770845)
10-14-2015 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
10-14-2015 3:04 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
Since nobody is saying anything relevant or even intelligent with respect to my OP, ...
Wrong. See Message 49
... 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. ...
That -- as you have described it -- is not a *NEW* phenotype. It's just a change in frequency of it's occurrence within a population.
Nor does this create\cause\develop a new species\clade that is genetically incompatible with the parent population ... because it existed in that population and interbred with it.
... Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? ...
ROFLOL. The irony.
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 73 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 259 (770847)
10-14-2015 4:38 PM


Time to go watch some Netflix. If I'm up to it later I may try to answer some of the other completely nonsensical manglings of the idea in my OP.
Yawn.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 81 of 259 (770848)
10-14-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
10-14-2015 4:30 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
quote:
Adding genetic variety can only PREVENT speciation.
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:
Think of speciation in terms of a breeder establishing a breed. Does the breeder want more genetic variety? Of course not, that only prevents getting the breed. The genetic variety has to be reduced to the particular characteristics the breeder desires.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 4:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 82 of 259 (770850)
10-14-2015 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
10-14-2015 3:13 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
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.
Hypothesis, Faith. It is our hypothesis that ALL alleles in ALL genomes were formed by mutations. This hypothesis is based on the evidence that at least some mutations have been seen to form new alleles. It is not based on perfect evidence, because perfect evidence doesn't exist. But, there is evidence to support it. If a new mechanism for forming alleles is found, we can no longer accept that ALL alleles in ALL genomes were formed by mutations. But, since mutation is the only known mechanism for forming alleles, our working hypothesis is that mutation is the only mechanism.
This is science, Faith. Science never really gets to an end result: it's always a work in progress, which means we're always basing our ideas on less evidence than we would like, and people like you think our incomplete and imperfect ideas are just "assumptions." It's terribly frustrating, and you might be able to imagine.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 3:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:41 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 83 of 259 (770851)
10-14-2015 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Blue Jay
10-14-2015 5:20 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
That's the lowest level possible science blue jay, basically a delusion. But with the ToE you have to be happy with any pretense I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 10-14-2015 5:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 10-14-2015 6:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 10-15-2015 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 259 (770852)
10-14-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
10-14-2015 4:48 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Adding genetic variety can only PREVENT speciation.
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.
READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,. Good grief. n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2015 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2015 6:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2015 10:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 259 (770853)
10-14-2015 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
10-14-2015 4:31 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
... Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? ...
ROFLOL. The irony.
This is not an error I make. I've been defending this argument for over ten years. I do not make that error. But your comment proves that you must be doing it yourself. I keep putting off dealing with your posts because you say so many ridiculously wrong things and say them at such length I haven't been up to it. For you to impute that particular error to me makes it only too sadly clear that you must be wrong to an even more abysmal degree than I suspected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 4:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:31 PM Faith has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 86 of 259 (770855)
10-14-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:41 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
That's the lowest level possible science blue jay...
But it is science.
-----
Seriously, though: what's your alternative? On one hand, I could accept a hypothesis that's based on evidence that's not perfect, but still pretty good; on the other hand, I could... well, I'm not really sure what else I could do. Thoughts?
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 87 of 259 (770856)
10-14-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
quote:
READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,. Good grief. n
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 259 (770857)
10-14-2015 6:19 PM


What is the definition for speciation in play here.
Dog breeding does not lead to speciation. Every dog on earth is of a single species and a single subspecies, namely Canis lupus familiaris.
So whatever happens during dog breeding, even if it is a reduction of diversity, there is no evidence whatsoever that it leads to the inability of the produced animals to interbreed, and thus speciation. The only thing that keeps male dogs way from female dogs are size differences and human beings throwing (figuratively) buckets of cold water on a dog orgy. Take away the humans, and what would soon result is a bunch of mutts. Heck, many dog breeds could not survive a single generation of competition in the wild.
Breeding incompatibilities result from an acquired diversity from the parent species.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by herebedragons, posted 10-16-2015 9:18 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 259 (770858)
10-14-2015 6:52 PM


The last three posts are not worth answering. First one is irrelevant, second one is wrong, third one is both irrelevant and wrong. Soon as someone says something at all worth answering I'll answer it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 10-14-2015 7:47 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 90 of 259 (770860)
10-14-2015 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
10-14-2015 4:30 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
Hi Faith,
Thanks for taking up the Tangle argument. I was hoping to get some resolution to the apparent contradiction in the way you view speciation. First you say this:
You can get new subspecies all the time without losing interbreeding ability, and losing it doesn't make it any more a species than any of the others.
And then later you say this:
Speciation occurs when you have a homogeneous population that can not interbreed with other (sub)species of its kind.
To summarize, first you say that losing the ability to interbreed doesn't make two populations into different species, despite that that's a key part of the definition of species, and then you say that speciation occurs when two populations cannot interbreed.
If I can add a little more clarification, the discussion is about a genetic inability to interbreed. I don't think anyone here cares about cases where the barriers to interbreeding are physical. No one here is claiming that, for example, Saint Bernards and toy chihuahuas are different species because they cannot physically interbreed, or that populations that are physically separated are different species because even though they *could* interbreed they never do because they're never in the same place.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 4:30 PM 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