Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 166 of 259 (771078)
10-19-2015 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
10-16-2015 5:58 PM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
quote:
It's exactly the same situation as having your golden retriever puppy show up mottled gray or your Freisian colt chocolate brown. They violate the breed and can't be sold.
To give a more detailed reply to this nonsense.
Firstly there is no way of "violating the breed". As I pointed out long ago, species are not artificially selected breeds. There is no set of required or forbidden traits, only those which the species actually has or does not have. And if a new trait should arise within the species, then the species includes that trait as one of the many variations.
Species are not homogenous because they are breeds. Breeds are artificially maintained. Dogs are a "hotch-potch" only by human efforts to create and maintain that state. Given the opportunity to interbreed the distinctive breeds would be lost. That is what real species are like.
In truth species are not always homogenous. Consider the peppered moth. The dark form is obviously distinct from the white, but both are the same species. Or another example, the yellow wagtail has a number of distinct variants, which freely interbreed.
And, of course, mutations need not be obvious at all. The genes governing the immune system display a lot of variation - as you may remember there are many distinct alleles in humans - many more than the maximum of four allowed by your Biblical literalism. Yet they are not at all visible to visual inspection.
So, no. it is not even true that all mutations would be rejected by breeders - even breeds have some variations and species have more. But it wouldn't matter if breeders would reject every single one. Species are not artificially defined breeds - they are what they are and if that conflicts with any human ideas of what they "should" be then it is the human ideas that are wrong. The whole idea of "violating the breed" is simply not applicable and to say otherwise is a major error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 10-20-2015 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 167 of 259 (771079)
10-19-2015 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
10-16-2015 5:47 PM


Re: Understanding Faith's argument
Okay let's start with this issue: The Faith Postulate -- evolution results in loss of genetic diversity through the loss of alleles as species divide into isolated sub-populations, and eventually species are so depleted they can no longer evolve new types.
Depends on how you are using the terms and it’s not easy to tell. The processes of evolution, which are selective subtractive processes as I’ve been using the term for this purpose, in the process of producing a new subspecies, if using new high frequency alleles, results in loss of competing alleles, which is loss of genetic diversity. This occurs from every population split, but eventually it MAY lead to the state of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. It depends on the continuation of selections or population splits. Whether that extreme is reached or not, there should be reduced genetic diversity from population to population to one degree or another.
Premise 1: every time a population splits for whatever reason, one population does not have all the alleles that the other population has - or that the parent population had.
We'll call this the "Secondary Population" for clarity (with the parent\remaining population being the "Primary Population").
I don’t understand your division into Premises and Conclusions. I don’t think this reflects how I organize my argument. Also, I’m not sure primary and secondary are clearer and I’m probably going to have trouble remembering, but anyway.
Every population split produces a new set of gene frequencies in the daughter population and possibly also the original population depending on how large it was. Some alleles that were high frequency in the original population may not be in the secondary population, they may be slightly lower or very much lower, or possibly, yes, even higher. The bigger the change in the gene frequencies, however, the more phenotypes you should get that weren’t in the original population, and fewer of those that were, even their complete loss after a while.
Premise 2: that this loss of alleles means that the frequency of alleles in the Secondary Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Primary Population.
But of course. The odds of the frequencies being the same in both populations are very low. There could be little difference nevertheless in which case there wouldn’t be much of a change in the phenome of the secondary population.
Conclusion 1: therefore the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first generation of the Secondary Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Primary Population.
I would expect it to be a scattering of different phenotypes that both were and were not in in the original population. This situation should increase with the next few generations too, more new phenotypes turning up because of the new gene frequencies coming together in new combinations.
Premise 3: this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation, due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Primary Population.
OK, but this might not happen in any appreciable way for a number of generations, depending of course on how many individuals we’re talking about in the founding group.
Premise 4: over time this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.
For the first few generations as I say above.
Conclusion 2: over time (after several generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Secondary Population, one that is distinctly different from the Primary Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but similar on the majority of traits).
Yes, after ALL the genotypes have been recombined together, however many generations that takes.
Premise 5: the dominance of the new "Type" will drive alleles that were previously dominant into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Secondary Population.
No. There’s no reason to assume that the previously dominant alleles are necessarily low frequency in the new population, they may or may not be. If they are they shouldn’t be expressed very often in the new population though they may not completely disappear. But whatever alleles are very low frequency should completely disappear from the population eventually, according to what I’ve read about this, not according to my own theory.
Premise 6: loss of previously dominant alleles will cause the Secondary Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Primary Population.
No. This isn’t about previously dominant allleles since we can’t assume they are pf any particular frequency in the new population. Loss of ENOUGH alleles, previously dominant or not, over enough time, which could take a number of population splits depending on the number of the founding individuals, MAY lead to reproductive incompatibility with the primary population, but I don’t hinge a lot on this occurring; it’s the TREND of reduced genetic diversity I try to keep in focus.
Conclusion 3: a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species.
Yes. Except you took a different path to this point than I do so it really isn’t a valid conclusion.
Conclusion 4: as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity until the resultant subspecies become non-viable and go extinct, thus ending evolution.
Totally wrong. Extinction is not what ends evolution according to anything I’ve said. Of course it would but that’s completely not the point of the argument. Evolution being the development of a new subspecies through the reduction of genetic diversity, is a trend that is at odds with the usual idea of evolution that seems to assume endless supplies of genetic potentials for continuous selection leading to new variation, or in other words, evolution. But if the trend brought about by the actual processes that create new subspecies, the selection processes, what we have is a trend that is counter to the usual expectation of endless variation that can even continue beyond the genome of the species and form a new species. It is the reduction of genetic diversity itself that ends the ability for a species to continue to evolve. It doesn’t have to go extinct for this, just reach a point where there isn’t enough genetic diversity left for evolution to continue. I’ve guessed that what are considered to be new species as a result of the process of speciation, where interbreeding with former populations has been lost, may often be the result of genetic mismatch because of its state of reduced genetic diversity.g\
The point I keep trying to make is that the trend of reduction of genetic diversity due to the processes of evolution, while it does indeed produce the phenotypic changes that are expected of evolution, diminishes the very fuel that is needed for evolution to happen at all. The actual processes of evolution are the complete opposite of what are assumed in popular presentations of the ToE, and in fact in themselves define the outer limits of evolution, even the outer boundary of the Kind. This occurs wherever the evolutionary processes are actively going on, usually in a daughter population which has become reproductively isolated.
So,
does this or does this not describe your argument?
Although you get parts of it I think the overall answer is No. Getting parts of it suggests you’re missing the overall point of the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2015 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 10-19-2015 8:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2015 9:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2015 9:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 190 by Admin, posted 10-20-2015 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 168 of 259 (771080)
10-19-2015 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
10-16-2015 8:45 PM


Re: Misconceptions on evolution
Here's the finished version of the post I had to interrupt for the Internet Technician:
==========================
Faith writes:
For the sake of discussion I sometimes accept that mutations can add alleles although I don't really believe it amounts to anything worth mentioning. The point is that even if they do add alleles, even if in fact they ARE the source of all the alleles in all species, it doesn't make a difference to the argument I'm making about evolution bringing about reduced genetic diversity.
RAZD writes:
Curiously, I don't think you have thought this through. Part of your thesis is that after a population split some previously rare alleles will rise to dominate the phenome of the Secondary Population ... and the rarest of rare alleles would be the new mutation alleles.
Well, no, RAZD, I wouldn’t say previously rare alleles WILL rise to dominate the phenome, that’s not part of my thesis, though I have said they might do that. The point is only to emphasize that new gene frequencies CAN make a dramatic difference between the phenomes of the daughter and parent populations.
Tell me Faith, how would selection tell the difference between a newly mutated allele and an old rarely expressed allele?
It wouldn't of course. That was the point of my first statement: it doesn’t make any difference whether the source of the alleles is mutation or an original built-in collection. But you are the one who makes the distinction between old and new alleles, I don’t see why it matters at all.
It isn't a matter of which "dominates" as you put it. Bloat your species with mutation-caused alleles, all that will do is give you a large scattering of different phenotypes within your population, right? ...
Wrong, what you would get (what we observe actually occurring) is that new mutated alleles displace some older alleles that are not as good at providing for the continued survival and breeding success of those phenotype traits.
How on earth would you know such a thing? Why should the age of the allele make a difference? Aren’t they always being renewed by replication anyway?
Also, I was picturing what happens immediately. You seem to be thinking of what develops over time. Leaving aside your reason to prefer mutation over preexisting alleles, if many mutations are occurring in a population, that should create scattered new phenotypes throughout the population. Now, you say you have observed something different, so do please explain and are you thinking of the situation of mutations showing up in great numbers and taking some generations to disperse through the population (if that can happen at all, keeping in mind that very low frequency alleles tend to drop out of populations which works against the spread of mutations but anyway). For one thing I've been talking about a hypothetical great number of mutations just to emphasize that it makes no difference to my argument, whereas in reality that's not likely to happen. So just exactly what do you claim to have observed?
... That may be a healthy state for the population but it's not evolution as I'm trying to talk about it.
If it is healthy for the population, then it is by definition beneficial to the species and will help the species (as a whole entity) to survive and reproduce in comparison to other species. That is another aspect of evolution, having to do with the viability of the species rather than the viability of the individuals, whether it is what you want to discuss or not.
Yes, but while a population is in that healthy state it is not actively evolving: that is, selection is not working on it to create a new subspecies at this point. It isn’t that I don’t want to discuss this, it’s that it’s not relevant to my argument, which is what happens when selection and isolation occur, which isn’t going on in this stable state. I’ve many times acknowledged this condition a population can be in, which may in fact be for the majority of the time.. But the point of my argument is what happens if and when new varieties or races are being formed from it.
What I'm trying to keep in focus is about evolution as selection, as the formation of a new subspecies. If a population is just sitting there in a healthy condition it is only "evolving" because you regard it as a phase of evolution. Though in fact it may or may not occur in any given population. But it is NOT evolving in the sense of forming a new species or subspecies because that requires selection.
You need some kind of selection from among those phenotypes to get evolution, don't you? Or do you disagree with that?
Selection would be what keeps new mutations from "bloating" the population. Selection reduces the effects of less successful alleles and promotes the effects of more successful alleles, whether they are old or new.
That may be its function, which is of course according to classical ToE, but as a mechanism or a process, whether we’re talking about selection according to that definition or the random "selection" I've been referring to -- whatever divides some of the alleles from others, that's what I'm calling selection -- in your example it divides the less successful from the more successful. But whatever the reason this division creates new gene frequencies and as the new frequencies work through the population new phenotypes emerge and are eventually incorporated into an overall new "phenome.' I'm using selection as an active thing that forms a new population so that it is distinct from the earlier population. It favors some of the "mutations" or alleles over the other mutations or alleles and this is how the changes toward a new species occur.
I focus on the random type selection of population splits, but it could be natural selection or domestic selection, the genetic situation will be the same, that is, the increasing presence in the population of the selected phenotype or phenotypes and the decreasing presence of the unselected ones. ...
Whether those expressed genetic alleles are new or mutated old ones or just old ones. The selection is for improved survival and reproduction withing the constraints of the ecology -- the ecology defines whether traits are beneficial, neutral or deleterious.
Again the reason for the selection doesn’t matter here. Your scenario is possible but I believe the much more usual thing is random splits, like the random "selection" of the lizards that became the new population on Pod Mrcaru. Since you are so insistent on classical ToE I don't HAVE to argue with you about that right now because it doesn't matter to my argument WHY a particular selection occurs. Have it your way for now. The point is that selection for any reason isolates a certain collection of alleles over others and makes a new population out of them, and this requires the loss of alleles for the unselected traits.
Whenever you focus on one particular aspect you ignore other aspects where your arguments are contradicted.
Actually that is not the case. And nothing you've said so far contradicts anything I've said. You just prefer a more limited version of selection than I do, but it works exactly the same way.
... If there is a population split and physical reproductive isolation then the new gene frequencies in the new population will bring out more phenotypes of the high frequency alleles, ...
Whether those phenotypes involve the expressed genetic alleles of new or mutated old ones or just old ones. The selection is still for improved survival and reproduction withing the constraints of the ecology -- the ecology still defines whether traits are beneficial, neutral or deleterious, and the selection process determines which traits are passed with higher frequencies or lower frequencies to the next generation.
You seem to think this distinction makes a difference to my argument, but it doesn’t. It's unnecessarily limiting but it makes no difference whatever. It doesn't matter whether old or new mutations or alleles are in the new population or not, or why this or that was selected, in all cases whatever the new mix happens to be, it entails the loss of other alleles which ultimately tends to reduced genetic diversity. In your scenario this is specifically for the enhancement of the species health or survival, but in my scenario it’s just a random thing. The end result in favoring a new mix of alleles is the same.
... which may or may not be the same as those in the original population but most likely not, ...
Because selection pressures will be different, which selects traits based on their fitness for improved survival and reproduction in the ecology the population inhabits. The ecology, and hence the selection, will necessarily be different for the Secondary Population, because it won't be the same as it was for the Primary Population.
Again, that's one possible scenario, classical ToE and it doesn't change one thing in my argument, though it limits the range of possibilities as I see them.
But hey, I'll argue against it anyway as a side issue. If the ecology made the selection whole species would die out before they could produce an adaptation, especially if the founding number of individuals was quite small. Also, the idea smacks of teleology, as if there must always be an adaptation that can show up for a give ecological challenge. But really it’s far more sensible to think in terms of the creature's available alleles producing a new interesting trait that fits with something different in the ecology than the original population. So that the ecology on the island of Pod Mrcaru didn't have to be so different from the original habitat as to murder or at least subject to borderline starvation all those poor lizards in order to get a strong jaw that could munch the harder food on the island. Where would the stronger jaw come from? It would have to be potential in the lizards’ genome but nobody would have guessed such an adaptation was possible until it showed up. Also, nothing is said about any unavailability of the food the original population was used to anyway. It was probably just as available on the new island and fed the first few generations of the lizards just fine until this new head and digestive system simply developed out of the genome due to the new gene frequencies among this small number of individuals.
{Here is where I had to abandon this post for the internet technician who was about to disconnect me. The rest of the post was at that point all RAZD’s. But now I’ll add my comments, hoping the original version didn’t confuse everybody too much}
... and fewer from the low frequency alleles, and this may be a motley collection for a while too, until after many generations of isolation the new population recombines the whole array of genotypes ...
Curiously this is not really how population genetics works at all. What you see are beneficial traits, whether high or low frequency in any population, being selected based on their relative success at survival and reproduction within their habitat\ecology\environment\niche: those that are more successful relative to the others in the breeding population increase in frequency while those that are less successful relative to the others in the breeding population decrease in frequency. This change in frequencies has very little to do with the initial frequencies and virtually everything to do with fitness to the habitat\ecology\environment\niche.
Even if that is the cause it doesn’t change the mechanics of the situation; it’s just a different reason for the different frequencies; but once you have the different gene frequencies they have to recombine over the generations in the same way as randomly selected gene frequencies would, the higher frequency ones dominating in the population, the lowest eventually dropping out.
If you can't eat the food available, no matter how high your allele frequency, you will not succeed in surviving to reproduce.
Which is why I don’t think fitness is very often the cause of the changes in reality since species would just die out if they weren’t already adapted. Which is what leads me to think the change in the creature comes first, based only on the new gene frequencies that occur randomly, and then the appropriate food for any new capacities would be preferred by the creature. But again, in principle it doesn’t matter whether the selection was made for fitness or not, what selection as a process or mechanism does to the genome is bring out the higher frequency traits and suppress or eliminate the low frequency traits and this is what leads to the situation of reduced genetic diversity, whether those frequencies are due to selection pressure or merely random isolation of a random portion of a population.
... until a recognizable new collective phenome, if that's the right word, emerges. Or do you disagree with this as a portrait of evolution?
New collective phenomes arise due to different alleles that succeed in surviving and reproducing, whether those selected expressed genetic alleles come from new or mutated old ones or just old ones within the population.
You keep insisting on this and I keep saying it makes no difference to my argument since the mechanics are the same no matter how the gene frequencies come about; although I think you are wrong that this is how it must happen.
I can't think of any other way you would get a recognizable new species / subspecies myself. ...
Mutations.
I would hope by now I’ve made it clear that it doesn’t matter to my argument whether the source of the alleles is mutation or built into the genome of the species. The stuff from which the selection is made is a completely separate issue; whatever its source it still has to be selected from to get a new subspecies and it’s the selection that brings out the new phenotypes that come eventually to characterize the new phenome, at the same time as it reduces genetic diversity, whether in a collection of mutations or a collection of builtin alleles.
The advantages of considering mutations as a prime cause of new species are (a) they have actually been observed to cause new beneficial traits that adapt species to their habitat\ecology\environment\niche, (b) mutations would necessarily differ between Primary Populations and Secondary Populations (no gene flow, no sharing), thus causing differences between the populations, and (c) having different alleles from the original inherited ones in each population is the only known way to drive genetic incompatibility.
Without getting into an argument about how true all that may be, the point for my overall argument is that whatever the source of the alleles, whether you are right about this or the alleles are already present in the genome, they still have to be subjected to selection and isolation for a new subspecies to emerge and that entails loss of genetic diversity.
... If you add alleles you get new phenotypes but scattered within the population, not characteristic of the population as a species or subspecies unto itself, which won't happen until selection and isolation happen. ...
Selection occurs in every generation, Faith, not once in a while.
Really? Never heard that before. Seems to me there can be extremely long periods when a large population remains stable and isn’t evolving, since evolving would be brought about by selection.
However, my point was only that after selection occurs and the new gene frequencies are isolated and being recombined, the first stage would have to be the emergence of new phenotypes scattered through the new population. You’ve argued with this but I’m not sure why. It’s not crucial to my point so I can give it up but it just seems like what would happen in the first stage of the recombination of new gene frequencies: alleles that had been low frequency in the original population but higher frequency in the new could now start emerging here and there in individuals because of new combinations. This would be a scattering at first, and later they would more or less all blend together into the new phenome. But again there’s nothing crucial about this, it just seems like the likely thing that would happen in the first stage.
Whatever mix there is in a population defines the characteristics of that population at that time (which is why it is always evolving).
You lost me. I would think it wasn’t evolving unless it was actually changing but this isn’t crucial so let’s drop it.
... Then when you have this selected and isolated population which is forming into a new species, it must also at the same time be losing a whole bunch of those other phenotypes mutation also brought in. ...
And again, what is selected depends on the relative success at survival and reproduction, whether those traits are new, mutated old or remaining old traits. What you lose are the traits least able to provide for success in survival and reproduction, whether those traits are new, mutated old or remaining old traits.
And again I doubt this but it doesn’t matter to my argument about the mechanisms or processes that form a new species /subspecies.
... If it doesn't then you don't have selection and if you don't have selection then you don't have evolution. Or do you disagree?
Disagree: you have evolution whether new alleles are selected or old alleles are selected, because the selection is for success in survival and reproduction, not for change for change sake.
I don’t get this at all, RAZD. New alleles, old alleles? Makes no sense to me to make such a distinction. If a new subspecies or variety is actively forming from the recombination of a new set of gene frequencies, then genetic diversity is also being lost. I don’t see how your distinction has anything to do with this process. As for selection supposedly occurring all the time, again, depending on the creature and the size of the population there may be long periods where selection isn’t happening at all and a population is stable, usually a very large population in that case; but again the reason why selection occurs makes not one bit of difference to the argument I’m trying to get across.
And you have evolution when the frequency of alleles change, whether that is by selection processes or mutations adding new alleles or variations on alleles.
But new mutations are single events. They don’t change the frequencies except to add new very low-frequency alleles to the mix, and low frequency alleles are vulnerable to being eliminated from the population altogether though I suppose that would occur to recessive alleles and dominant ones get passed on. But aren’t the odds of any mutation spreading in a population pretty low? But that is what has to happen before it could really be a viable allele contributing to the phenome. In other words, it still has to be selected, whether according to your formula of fitness or just randomly, for it to become part of the phenome of a new subspecies. New mutations that don’t spread, don’t get selected, must be the most common situation, and you don’t have evolution at that point, just some new material for evolution to work on if it comes to that.
Popular presentations of the ToE picture going from identifiable species to identifiable species so instead of a population of motley different phenotypes selection makes a new population out of those that are selected and eventually eliminates the others. ...
What is observed is that identifiable species have new mutations that result in new alleles and that these new alleles undergo selection with the old alleles based on their ability to provide for success at survival and reproduction. Over time this selection plus genetic drift result in new phenotypes arising.
I doubt this has been observed, but anyway again it doesn’t make a difference to my argument, which is about the mechanics of selection and recombination, how the allleles that get selected and recombined come about in the first place.
We compare those observed changes with the difference seen between different fossil species and see that they are similar in magnitude.
What we observe is that the introduction of successful new alleles into a population usually results in the displacement of less successful old alleles, resulting in anagenesis -- population change over generations.
Mutation as I understand it, certainly not beneficial mutation, does not occur frequently enough for such a situation to be observed. But again you focus on the sources of the alleles, which makes no difference to my argument. If you are getting new gene frequencies that are recombining in reproductive isolation then the mechanics are the same no matter what the source of the alleles.
... By losing the others genetic diversity is being reduced. ...
Wrong. The diversity is modified by new traits displacing old ones. Sometimes there is reduction, sometimes there is addition, and they can vary generation by generation.
Not wrong at all. For one thing merely displacing old traits by new traits, which is a very odd idea, doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation. You still have a collection of different traits in a population, but you aren’t getting a new subspecies unless and until selection acts on them, separating some from the others, and then recombining them over the next generations etc. etc. etc. The additive phase creates the collection, but it isn’t evolving until selection acts on it to isolate some of them from the others.
... If you don't have selection you don't have evolution, ...
If you don't have mutation and selection you don't have evolution.
Oh absolutely NOT true. Even if mutations never occurred, the naturally occurring or built-in alleles are all that is needed for new subspecies (varieties, breeds, races etc.) to form.
... you have a species with high genetic diversity and a lot of phenotypic variation ...
Which can improve species fitness relative to other species to succeed at survival and reproduction as a species.
but isn’t evolving until some portion of the population is selected and isolated.
... That may be a pretty common situation and a healthy situation for the species, but again I'm trying to talk about what happens when evolution is actively happening, when some individuals are selected over the rest of the population either because of their greater fitness, or just randomly as some part of a population moves away from the main population or in some other random way gets reproductively isolated from it.
Evolution is "actively happening" in every generation of every species --
Not according to discussions I’ve found many times online of lack of evolution duriong long periods of stasis in large populations.
each generation has new mutations and each generation undergoes selection to determine who succeeded at survival and reproduction and thus which traits are passed on to the next generation.
Not so, RAZD. And this idea of a struggle to establish the fittest is pretty old hat by now and not really a very viable option. But I didn’t want to get into that side of things in this discussion. Again, it really doesn’t matter to my argument WHY evolution occurs, the mechanics involved are all that matters, the selection, the isolating, the recombining.
All these different forms of selection produce a new population with new gene frequencies which when recombined for enough generations bring about a new breed or race or variety or species/ subspecies. Do you disagree that selection is required for this to happen? Do you disagree that selection produces a population with reduced genetic diversity?
Throw in mutations and new alleles arising from expression of the mutations into the mix, consider them the same way you consider rare old alleles, and you have a much clearer description of evolution producing new species.
I DO consider them the same way I consider any kind of alleles, for the sake of discussion as I said. I don’t believe they contribute much of anything if anything at all, but it doesn’t matter, I can act as if they exist for the sake of argument. But I certainly don’t get a much clearer description of evolution by doing that.
Throw in the fact that to get genetic incompatibility you must have different mutations in isolated population that are not compatible, that all shared alleles no matter their relative frequencies, are de facto compatible as they were compatible in the Primary Population.
Incompatibilty could be brought about by a preponderance of homozygous traits, oh blue eyes, black fur, long tails, whatever, in one population, while the other populations have a preponderance of brown eyes, gray fur and short fluffy tails. The cheetah isn’t suffering from mutational incompatibility with others of the cat kind, just from having so many fixed loci that can’t combine with the different collection of alleles at those same loci in other cats, even whatever cat was its genetic parent.
So you have your new subspecies or variety and now you want to add new mutations, new alleles and go back to the state of a motley collection of different phenotypes that isn't evolving? ...
No Faith, new mutations, new alleles are an on-going process, just as selection of phenotype traits for fitness for survival and reproduction is an on-going process, and they both occur in every generation of every living species. Like breathing; one breath in and one breath out ... followed by ... one breath in and ... one breath out.
The breath in is the taking in of supplies, if one believes mutation is the source of those supplies, which I don’t but anyway that’s the idea, and then the breath out is the selection from among those supplies to be made into a new subspecies. It’s the second part I’m trying to keep in focus. It divides those supplies into smaller portions by selection for whatever, for fitness or just randomly, or in breeding for human preference. The selection acts on the supplies to isolate some of them as the basis for a new subspecies. Some, even most, of the supplies are left behind in this action. You could have increased the supplies a hundredfold but still they have to be cut down to make a new subspecies, always losing genetic diversity, always leaving the others behind.
I’ve answered this a jillion times in this post alone. But also, OTHERS on the thread have brought up this idea of adding mutations after a new subspecies has been formed from selection and isolation and recombination, and I’m saying No, that would just destroy the subspecies that just formed and what is the point in that? Nature doesn’t do that, just as breeders in their right mind don’t. And it violates the very idea of how the ToE works, which presents the idea of evolution continuing from the new varieties or species, without any implication that the genetic diversity needs to be built back up after its been lost. It’s lost in order to bring about the new variety or species. If you build it back up you are going back to square one, you aren’t continuing the processes of evolution that would lead past any new species to others. Actually it is rather too much like one step after another, one forward, one back. You’ll never even preserve a new species that way, let alone evolve past it.
... I thought evolution was supposed to proceed from species to species as if there was nothing to stop the formation of new varieties. ...
Which it does, as can be observed. Once you raise your eyes out of the microevolutionary changes that occur within each generation, within a breeding population, you see that these changes add up to gradual changes in the breeding population phenome over time -- just as you posit for your isolated populations, generalized to all populations ... but with mutations added to the mix. As noted this is anagenesis, and it is one facet of macroevolution as defined in science.
The problem is that the theory assumes change is open-ended, assumes it without question. The focus is all on the changes. Lots of changes are of course possible in a species. What I’m trying to show is that these changes COST, there is nothing open-ended about them. To get a new phenome, new subspecies, you have to lose genetic diversity. Putting it back only defeats the purpose. The looss is necessary to evolution. You can’t just talk about endless changes as if they just go on and on and on.
... Nothing in any popular presentation of the ToE ever supposes the need to add genetic fuel to keep it going.
Then you are not getting the right information for your "popular presentation" ... see
Mechanisms of microevolution - Understanding Evolution
UCB writes:
Mechanisms of microevolution
All that is the very stuff that led me to my argument in the first place. They make no distinction between the additive processes (mutation, gene flow or migration) and the subtractive processes (selection and genetic drift). That is the distinction I made that led me to this argument I’ve been pursuing for years. But they go on and on as if you can have changes without the loss of genetic diversity. It never even enters into the description. To get the new beetle population of predominantly brown genes entails the loss of the green genes. (That is, selection of the brown genes entails the loss of the green genes). That is what I mean by the loss of genetic diversity. It may not amount to a big loss the first time around but after generations of losing the green genes, you’ll have a population of brown genes with the complete absence of green genes. That has to happen to get the phenotypic change but the ToE seems never to have heard of it, as if you could throw out all the green genes forever, and the yellow ones and the purple ones, leaving only the brown ones, and have enough genetic diversity to come up with some completely new variety after all that. Can’t happen.
UCB writes:
There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population.
What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
In other words the microevolutionary processes cause macroevolution to occur over a span of generations.
Aargh. All they are doing is asserting that it happens, RAZD, as if evolution just keeps on a-goin and never stops. This is standard ToE, but this is exactly what I’m arguing against.
They go on:
UCB writes:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
Given enough time. The evo mantra.
Here’s your two-step waltz. We get new genetic material with migration and mutation, we lose genetic material with genetic drift and selection. We add genetic diversity with migration and mutation, we chop that diversity down by selection and drift in order to get a new phenome. If this just continued endlessly no species would ever form at all, it would be destroyed by the addition of genetic diversity every time it occurred. In reality this doesn’t happen. In reality you get new species or subspecies by spending the genetic diversity, until you have, oh, perhaps a very interesting pretty bird with a new warble, that has run out of genetic diversity, or at least run low enough on genetic diversity so that any new species that could develop from it are very limited.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2015 8:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2015 7:40 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 169 of 259 (771081)
10-19-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by herebedragons
10-17-2015 11:42 PM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
OK so I didn’t get that you thought your examples were clear contradictions of my argument. Now that I get that much I can say no they aren’t, you don’t get my argument.
But your position is faulty; it doesn't match up with the reality that we work with every day.
This is just a mystifying assertion. You make it from time to time but haven’t shown me how I’m supposedly wrong at this level of your working experience. You like to SAY I am, but now I’m sure you just don’t understand the argument I’m making, which is in fact par for the course here so I should have known it before.
What you are doing is focusing on a few general observations and extrapolating those observations to the whole ToE despite there being observations that invalidate your conclusions.
Just another assertion so far, but as for extrapolating, if what I’ve described is what happens when the selective subtractive isolating processes are at work, it should always be what happens whenever the selective subtractive isolating processes are at work.
If you want us to concede that evolution caused a reduction in genetic diversity in cheetahs, elephant seals and domestic breeding populations, I think we already have. I said it a long time ago that yes, it's true, but trivially true. PaulK has said it, and I believe Dr. A, RAZD and Percy have agreed as well; it's true, but trivially true. It is not the whole story.
The only point of using those examples was what they represent that validates my argument. Agreeing with those statements is meaningless in itself unless they are recognized as the basis for the pattern I’m describing.
My examples and questions were meant to challenge the idea that evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity and that as organisms evolve they will eventually run out of genetic diversity. Groups of organisms that have undergone multiple speciation (or sub-speciation, whatever) events have NOT run out of diversity. That challenges the idea that evolution REQUIRES a loss in diversity.
NO IT DOES NOT. You are talking about plants. As I said plant genetics must be appreciably different from the animal situations I tend to focus on, and I’m not sure exactly how or how it might make a difference to my argument, and so far you have done nothing to clarify this, but the fact of multiple speciation events not running out of diversity proves nothing against my argument. As I believe I said I have to assume that the overall genetic situation is similar enough that if I’m right then plants too will lose genetic diversity with each new population split, but if there’s no way to measure it there’s no way to know this from population to population.
Clearly there must be enormously more genetic diversity in plants simply because you can point to so many thousands of (sub)species. But unless there is something really different about how plant genetics works, they too have to be losing genetic diversity if new varieties are developed from population split to population split. How would one know? Well, as you say, it is impossible to measure this in most cases. I wouldn’t expect it to be possible until you get to the extremes where there are many fixed loci or so few alleles per locus they CAN be counted, if that is possible and I don’t know.
But the fact of a huge number of species/subspecies does not in any way contradict my argument in itself. It just means extremely high initial genetic diversity. The only time the trend of reduction should become apparent is at the extreme. You assert there is no reduction but if you can’t measure it how do you know?
it reminds me that the loss of genetic diversity through processes of evolution is definitely a conclusion I came to from my own encounters with evolutionist concepts.
No.
That is a statement about my personal experience, that I came to my conclusion through what I learned about evolutionist concepts. How on earth do you think you can contradict such a personal statement?
You may have reached a conclusion based on your study but when you apply it to a broader scope, like addressing the ToE, it becomes a premise.
I see, you feel free to redefine my own personal experience? No, I didn’t need to apply it to a broader scope because all by itself it undermines the expectations of evolution that selective subtractive processes can just go on and on forever. You seem to think evolution is something else than what I’m talking about, something broader, so that’s what needs to be discussed. Meanwhile please leave my personal experiences to me.
After you have formed your premise then you need to form the hypothesis such as: If evolution reduces genetic diversity then we should observe groups that have undergone multiple speciation events to have significantly reduced genetic diversity.
Yes, that is to be expected. If the processes follow the pattern I’ve described they should follow it in all cases.
Now before you can draw a conclusion about your premise, you need to run tests and/or examine the data based on your hypothesis.
I believe I discovered a rule about how the processes of evolution work, the selective or subtractive processes. If that is the case it should apply across the board wherever those processes are operating.
What data do you have on, for example, dogs? Do you have any genetic diversity information on dogs at all? Can you demonstrate that any breeds have less genetic diversity than the breeds they were derived from?
Knowledge of how breeding works should be sufficient. To ask this question is to show that you don’t understand how it works at all. I use the example of breeding, and especially dog breeding, because it ought to be so well known that it can serve as an example for all other cases where new species and races are the result. I’ve described it so many times by now there should be no doubt about how it works. Breeds formed by SELECTION OF TRAITS from other breeds HAVE to lose genetic diversity. The idea that they might not is impossible. You ought to know this. It used to be that fixed loci were the mark of a pure breed, and what are fixed loci but the result of loss of alleles so that all that remain are those for the breed’s particular traits and what is that but loss of genetic diversity so that the characteristics of the breed can be formed and then preserved? I’ve explained this a million times, how have you failed to get it?
If no, then you cannot make a conclusion as to whether your premise is true or not.
In the case of dog breeding and other breeding programs I most certainly can. There is absolutely no doubt that breeding from selection of traits requires loss of genetic diversity. This is what makes domestic breeding such a good example for what must happen in all similar situations.
from Message 146
Apparently I missed the "challenge." I don't get it. The whole thing hits me as a series of incomprehensible accusations of this or that fallacy or error, based on some preoccupations of HBD's own that have nothing to do with what I've been arguing.
Incomprehensible?? You have actually been studying this issue longer than I have. How is anything I said or asked incomprehensible?
Apparently what was incomprehensible to me was that I didn’t grasp that you intended your examples to be a challenge to my argument, which I would have thought you’d know if you’d been following my posts couldn’t possibly be a challenge to it. The number of subspecies is no challenge to it; that only demonstrates initial high genetic diversity, and there may also be relatively high genetic diversity in each of the subspecies for all I know, despite genetic loss from the previous population, but what you’d have to prove to challenge my argument is that the formation of the subspecies did not entail any loss of genetic diversity at all or the reverse or some such. As you say there is no way to measure such things so at this point the examples aren’t examples for or against my argument. I’d predict that there was some loss of genetic diversity in every single case of the formation of a subspecies or daughter population. How could we know? If plant genetics isn’t appreciably different from dog genetics I offer the comparison as evidence for my point of view.
You seem to think there is as much or greater genetic diversity in your many species than in the original or something like that? If so, why do you think that? But also as I understand it there is a lot of hybridization that goes on in plant biology, and that would be a completely different situation from what I’m basing my argument on. You can get new varieties that way too rather than only by the subtractive processes.
My questions DO have everything to do with what you are arguing. You claim that your ideas completely discredit the ToE, and yet you only want to focus on a few unique cases where the species have low genetic variability.
I use those as examples of how you get new species by loss of genetic diversity, they aren’t meant to represent any kind of norm and I’ve never presented them as such. I use endangered species and breeding prorams as my examples because as you say it is impossible to measure genetic diversity in most cases and I would expect these examples to make the general case about genetic diversity. I’ve proposed that species in the wild, especially in ring species, or wherever you can be pretty sure of the order of population development, be genetically tested, or that a laboratory situation be set up for that purpose. Looking for reduced number of alleles and especially more fixed loci for the salient traits in the most recently formed populations.
Certainly not enough to convince me to change the direction of my research. Nor do I see that your premise has any bearing on the ToE in any significant way. Certainly doesn't discredit it; doesn't really even challenge it.
Your straw man version of my argument certainly wouldn’t challenge it.
But in all your responses that refer to your own work I get no idea of exactly what my argument would challenge in it anyway, if I were right that is. What would be different?
Of course I would love it if someone did some research to test what I’m claiming. You’d have to understand what I’m claiming first of course. Do you do DNA studies on your plants for instance? In what circumstances, for what purposes? Just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by herebedragons, posted 10-17-2015 11:42 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by herebedragons, posted 10-19-2015 11:42 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 170 of 259 (771083)
10-19-2015 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Admin
10-18-2015 8:54 AM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
But the main point is that it has now been confirmed genetically that the mammalian ear evolved independently from other non-ear reptile structures and not from the reptile ear itself.
OR, more likely, just to get a creationist perspective into the picture, there was no evolution at all and the different structures were designed for the creature they were designed for. Since they are comparing how these structures develop in the embryo, they are assuming that embryonic development reflects evolutionary history, but in reality it means nothing more than that the body structure of both creatures was designed independently at the Creation, and the developmental sequence in the embryo is probably related to how the structure fits together, and has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed evolutionary history, which of course doesn’t exist.
Actually, you know, if there was anything to this idea that one creature evolved from the earlier, meaning the one lower in the strata, there really should be more transitional continuity than there in fact is, which is what this study demonstrates. All this happy pointing to supposed transitionals makes much of superficial similarities while leaving out a wealth of differences that make the whole idea untenable.
However, they must be congratulated for being willing to test the idea.
I wonder if they know what happened to the original reptile ears as our mammalian antecedents evolved.
They stayed in the reptiles of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Admin, posted 10-18-2015 8:54 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 10-19-2015 9:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 10-22-2015 7:56 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 171 of 259 (771084)
10-19-2015 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
10-18-2015 10:11 AM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
So the confusion would appear to come from calling the common ancestors "reptiles" (as opposed to "reptile-like" or properly as "amniote") ... hence the usage of "non-mamalian amniote" above and in other discussions, something I will now be even more careful about.
I have a question. Why would it be that the fossil record never contains this common ancestor such as between humans and apes, or in this case between reptiles and mammals. I mean supposedly there were multiplied millions of years between each layer of fossils, you’d think that common ancestor would show up somewhere wouldn’t you? Not to mention of course that each of those layers oddly seem to contain exactly the same version of the creature instead of a range of transitionals. Why would that be if it’s all random what died in the layer and there must have been transitionals galore and ancestors galore all roaming around in the same time period or close enough in time to fall into a ditch and get fossilized in the near vicinity. Ya know? I mean why the PARTICULARITY of the fossil record, not to mention the long time gaps between when multiplied millions of creatures in various stages of evolution and various degrees of relatedness to the ones that got fossilized, must also have lived and died, but only these particular ones got preserved, each a particular species apparently, and the pattern is so, you know, the same, from one epoch to another up the strata. That is, we have a layer of a particular kind of sediment containing a particular kind of dead organisms, which is all that represents a particular time period of multiplied millions of years, followed by another layer of a particular kind of sediment containing another very particular kind of dead organisms, and so on up the strata. Ya know?
This divergent evolution of the ear is also good evidence of not using the same "design" over even when all the parts are there, readily available, and fully functional.
Sometimes y’all complain that the same design IS used, which supposedly shows that the Creator isn’t very creative; but here you seem to complain that He IS original. One way or another I guess you get to put yourselves above the God who made you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2015 10:11 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 10-19-2015 8:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2015 10:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 172 of 259 (771086)
10-19-2015 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
10-19-2015 6:01 PM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
Faith writes:
Why would it be that the fossil record never contains this common ancestor such as between humans and apes, or in this case between reptiles and mammals.
If you were digging in a field and came across a human skeleton, how would you determine if that previous living human had any living descendants simply by looking at the skeleton? The answer is you couldn't. Even if we dug up the common ancestor we wouldn't know it because morphology alone is not enough to determine direct ancestry.
Not to mention of course that each of those layers oddly seem to contain exactly the same version of the creature instead of a range of transitionals.
Here are a range of transitionals found in successive layers.
Why would that be if it’s all random what died in the layer and there must have been transitionals galore and ancestors galore all roaming around in the same time period or close enough in time to fall into a ditch and get fossilized in the near vicinity.
Your claims are proven wrong by the simple fact that we have maybe one or two specimens for many species. If fossilization is as common as you claim, why don't we have more fossils for species that we know existed?
Sometimes y’all complain that the same design IS used, which supposedly shows that the Creator isn’t very creative; but here you seem to complain that He IS original. One way or another I guess you get to put yourselves above the God who made you.
What we want to know is why the Creator would be limited to a nested hierarchy, the very pattern of similarities that we would expect to see from evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 6:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 173 of 259 (771087)
10-19-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
10-19-2015 5:13 PM


Re: Understanding Faith's argument
Faith writes:
Depends on how you are using the terms and it’s not easy to tell. The processes of evolution, which are selective subtractive processes as I’ve been using the term for this purpose, in the process of producing a new subspecies, if using new high frequency alleles, results in loss of competing alleles, which is loss of genetic diversity. This occurs from every population split, but eventually it MAY lead to the state of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. It depends on the continuation of selections or population splits. Whether that extreme is reached or not, there should be reduced genetic diversity from population to population to one degree or another.
At the same time, every individual is born with mutations. As I mentioned earlier, for cheetahs we would expect 3 to 5 new genotype alleles per individual. With a population of just 10,000 individuals, that is 30,000 to 50,000 new alleles per generation. Natural selection can't remove all of them. They will accumulate and increase genetic diversity.
Every population split produces a new set of gene frequencies in the daughter population and possibly also the original population depending on how large it was.
Every generation adds new alleles in both populations. Due to the randomness of mutation, the interplay between mutations, and differences in selective pressures, the unavoidable result of this process is that different mutations will accumulate in each subpopulation causing the two populations to become less and less similar over time.
As an analogy, you are trying to claim that rivers should dry up in a matter of months because they always go downhill. Obviously, you are ignoring the process that causes water to move uphill, what we call precipitation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 5:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 174 of 259 (771088)
10-19-2015 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
10-19-2015 6:00 PM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
OR, more likely, just to get a creationist perspective into the picture, there was no evolution at all and the different structures were designed for the creature they were designed for.
Why would this necessarily produce a nested hierarchy?
Why would the nested hierarchy based on morphology also match the nested hierarchy based on DNA that has nothing to do with morphology? Why would the creator be unable to mix and match design features, like three middle ear bones and feathers? Why couldn't the creator be able to give a bear and a human the same cytochrome c gene with the same exact sequence while giving chimps a cytochrome c gene that differs by 10% from both bears and humans?
Actually, you know, if there was anything to this idea that one creature evolved from the earlier, meaning the one lower in the strata, there really should be more transitional continuity than there in fact is, which is what this study demonstrates. All this happy pointing to supposed transitionals makes much of superficial similarities while leaving out a wealth of differences that make the whole idea untenable.
How do you determine if a fossil is transitional or not if you aren't using physical similarities? How do you determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 6:00 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 175 of 259 (771089)
10-19-2015 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
10-19-2015 5:13 PM


Re: Understanding Faith's argument
Thanks, let's iron this out as much as possible.
Depends on how you are using the terms and it’s not easy to tell. ...
Curiously I tried to use your terminology in that "abstract" of your argument, so if you are having trouble understanding the meaning then you begin to get an inkling of the problems we have trying to understand you.
... The processes of evolution, which are selective subtractive processes as I’ve been using the term for this purpose, in the process of producing a new subspecies, if using new high frequency alleles, results in loss of competing alleles, which is loss of genetic diversity. This occurs from every population split, ...
Which is what I thought I said.
... but eventually it MAY lead to the state of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. It depends on the continuation of selections or population splits. Whether that extreme is reached or not, there should be reduced genetic diversity from population to population to one degree or another.
Okay, so you now stop short of extinction and the end of further evolution.
I don’t understand your division into Premises and Conclusions. ...
It's how you set up an argument in logic.
If Premise 1 is true
and Premise 2 is true
then Conclusion is true
Your premises are you observations and your conclusions are what logically follows from the premises if the premises are true and the logical argument is valid.
You claimed you argument was logical, so I thought you understood what made up a logical argument, as opposed to one that just 'feels good' because you agree with it.
... . I don’t think this reflects how I organize my argument. ...
Maybe you should give it a try -- it is a common method for organizing one's thoughts into a clear argument, and it may help you get your points across better. There are references if you are interested.
... Also, I’m not sure primary and secondary are clearer and I’m probably going to have trouble remembering, but anyway. ...
Parent and daughter. What I was trying was a description that would avoid the word species, seeing as you have such an averse reaction to it. I was also thinking ahead to further population splits, which would be Tertiary (grand-daughter), Quaternary (great grand-daughter), etc.
... Every population split produces a new set of gene frequencies in the daughter population and possibly also the original population depending on how large it was. ...
And I was ignoring the effect on the parent\remaining population for now and focusing on just the isolated daughter population as that is where you focus your argument. Can we agree to ignore the parent population at this time?
... Some alleles that were high frequency in the original population may not be in the secondary population, they may be slightly lower or very much lower, or possibly, yes, even higher. ...
So the alleles will have a high probability of being different frequencies, I think we can agree on that, and I can modify 'premise 1' to read
Premise 1: every time a population splits for whatever reason, one population does not have the frequency of alleles that the other population has - or that the parent population had.
Would that be a more accurate premise in your argument? It certainly is one I can agree with.
... The bigger the change in the gene frequencies, however, the more phenotypes you should get that weren’t in the original population, and fewer of those that were, even their complete loss after a while. ...
Essentially what I said your 'Conclusion 1' was; different phenotype distributions compared to the parent\primary population. But let's get back to 'premise 2' ...
But of course. The odds of the frequencies being the same in both populations are very low. There could be little difference nevertheless in which case there wouldn’t be much of a change in the phenome of the secondary population.
So we can agree that 'Premise 2' is part of your argument, and again, I think we can agree on that, even though it now appears fairly much the same as 'premise 1' as modified.
I would expect it to be a scattering of different phenotypes that both were and were not in in the original population. ...
So you agree that 'conclusion 1' is part of your argument, and again, I think we can agree on that
... This situation should increase with the next few generations too, more new phenotypes turning up because of the new gene frequencies coming together in new combinations.
Which is essentially what I said for 'premise 4'.
OK, but this might not happen in any appreciable way for a number of generations, depending of course on how many individuals we’re talking about in the founding group.
So we agree that 'premise 3' is part of your argument.
For the first few generations as I say above.
So we agree that 'premise 4' is part of your argument.
Yes, after ALL the genotypes have been recombined together, however many generations that takes.
So we agree that 'conclusion 2' is part of your argument.
No. There’s no reason to assume that the previously dominant alleles are necessarily low frequency in the new population, ...
Sorry, my mistake and lack of clarity: I meant dominant as in dominates the population rather than dominant as in dominant versus recessive. Let me rephrase that to
Premise 5: the domination of the new "Type" will drive alleles that were previously common into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Secondary Population.
... If they are they shouldn’t be expressed very often in the new population though they may not completely disappear. But whatever alleles are very low frequency should completely disappear from the population eventually, ...
Which is essentially what I meant for 'premise 5' as you can see now with my correction.
No. This isn’t about previously dominant allleles since we can’t assume they are pf any particular frequency in the new population. ...
Again (you can see how word use affects understanding eh?) I'll change this to correct my poor/misuse of 'dominant' to read:
Premise 6: loss of previously common alleles will eventually cause the Secondary Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Primary Population.
... Loss of ENOUGH alleles, previously dominant or not, over enough time, which could take a number of population splits depending on the number of the founding individuals, MAY lead to reproductive incompatibility with the primary population, ...
So if I further change 'premise 6' from "will cause" to "may cause" we can agree that this would reflect your argument.
Yes. Except you took a different path to this point than I do so it really isn’t a valid conclusion.
Except that -- with the corrections made for my poor choice of "dominant" as noted above -- it seems that we are in agreement over what your argument is and how you get to this conclusion.
Note that taking a different path to the same result does not make that path invalid, so you are not correct in that statement. There are many paths to the top of a mountain, but they all get to the top of the mountain and thus are valid paths, yes?
Totally wrong. Extinction is not what ends evolution according to anything I’ve said. Of course it would but that’s completely not the point of the argument. ...
Okay, so you are backing away from evolution ending by extinctions of species ... for now.
... Evolution being the development of a new subspecies through the reduction of genetic diversity, is a trend that is at odds with the usual idea of evolution that seems to assume endless supplies of genetic potentials for continuous selection leading to new variation, or in other words, evolution. . But if the trend brought about by the actual processes that create new subspecies, the selection processes, what we have is a trend that is counter to the usual expectation of endless variation that can even continue beyond the genome of the species and form a new species. It is the reduction of genetic diversity itself that ends the ability for a species to continue to evolve. It doesn’t have to go extinct for this, just reach a point where there isn’t enough genetic diversity left for evolution to continue. I’ve guessed that what are considered to be new species as a result of the process of speciation, where interbreeding with former populations has been lost, may often be the result of genetic mismatch because of its state of reduced genetic diversity.
We can modify 'conclusion 4' to read;
Conclusion 4: as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity until the resultant subspecies become unable to sub-divide further, thus ending evolution.
Would that be an accurate statement of your argument?
The point I keep trying to make is that the trend of reduction of genetic diversity due to the processes of evolution, while it does indeed produce the phenotypic changes that are expected of evolution, diminishes the very fuel that is needed for evolution to happen at all. The actual processes of evolution are the complete opposite of what are assumed in popular presentations of the ToE, and in fact in themselves define the outer limits of evolution, even the outer boundary of the Kind. This occurs wherever the evolutionary processes are actively going on, usually in a daughter population which has become reproductively isolated.
So do the corrected premises and conclusions match your argument now?
Although you get parts of it I think the overall answer is No. Getting parts of it suggests you’re missing the overall point of the argument.
Curiously what I see are minor differences that can be easily corrected as I have done.
I will summarize the revised version in the next post for brevity and clarity.
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 167 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 5:13 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 176 of 259 (771090)
10-19-2015 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
10-19-2015 5:13 PM


Re: Understanding Faith's argument - v2
Let me put it in bullet form this time:
  1. every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.
  2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.
    C1: THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of those existing phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.
  3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.
  4. over time (several generations) this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.
    C2: THEREFORE over time (after many generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Daughter Population, one that is distinctly different from the Parent Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but appearing similar on the majority of traits).
  5. the domination of the new "Type" will drive some alleles that were previously common into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Daughter Population.
  6. loss of previously common alleles may eventually cause the Daughter Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Parent Population.
    C3: THEREFORE a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species.
    C4: THEREFORE as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity being available, until the (final) resultant subspecies become unable to sub-divide further, thus ending evolution.
So, does this or does this not describe your argument?
Now I note that there is a leap in the argument from statement 4 to the following conclusion (C2) -- what causes a new "Type" to emerge and dominate the population versus just having a hodge-podge of varieties ... I seem to be missing a part of your argument, one that appears rather important. Can you explain?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : added labels to conclusions for easy reference, modified C1 for clrty

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 167 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 5:13 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 177 of 259 (771091)
10-19-2015 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
10-19-2015 6:01 PM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
I have a question. Why would it be that the fossil record never contains this common ancestor such as between humans and apes, or in this case between reptiles and mammals. ...
It is entirely possible that we have, however we can't be sure without more evidence. Unfortunately this evidence is hard to come by due to the low incidence of fossils being found (or formed).
Call it standard scientific tentativity to how the nested hierarchies develop.
... Not to mention of course that each of those layers oddly seem to contain exactly the same version of the creature instead of a range of transitionals. ...
Not odd at all, rather there IS a range in each of the transitional layers. Look again at the Pelycodus -- each layer has a range of sizes, and different layers have different (but overlapping) ranges of sizes. So as the population as a whole evolves to larger sizes each transitional group in their specific layer has a range of sizes.
... not to mention the long time gaps between when multiplied millions of creatures in various stages of evolution and various degrees of relatedness to the ones that got fossilized, ...
And again, we can look at the foraminifera and a virtually continuous evolution over time, with thousands of intermediate forms, with speciation events, all bedded in the spatial\temporal matrix.
Sometimes y’all complain that the same design IS used, which supposedly shows that the Creator isn’t very creative; but here you seem to complain that He IS original. One way or another I guess you get to put yourselves above the God who made you.
Because the evidence forms nested hierarchies, not a braided network: once you have branched off from an evolutionary lineage you can't share the same mutations and thus the same developments if it is evolution; creation does not have such a restriction, and all known actual design certainly cross-fertilizes borrowed ideas in a braided network pattern that does not form nested hierarchies.
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 171 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 6:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 178 of 259 (771092)
10-19-2015 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
10-19-2015 5:32 PM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
but now I’m sure you just don’t understand the argument I’m making, which is in fact par for the course here so I should have known it before.
Of course we don't understand it, because if we did we would certainly abandon the ToE in favor of your much more well thought out approach.
You are talking about plants. As I said plant genetics must be appreciably different from the animal situations I tend to focus on, and I’m not sure exactly how or how it might make a difference to my argument, and so far you have done nothing to clarify this,
Plant genetics works just like animal genetics and fungal genetics and bacterial genetics. That is why we use plants like Arabidopsis and fruit flies like Drosophila melanogaster and yeast like Saccharomyces cerevisiae and even round worms like Caenorhabditis elegans as genetic models which have helped to work out cellular processes and gene function in humans. Yes, plants and insects and yeast have different survival and reproductive strategies, but the underlying genetics works the same way; as do evolutionary processes. We don't need a different theory for every kingdom.
As I believe I said I have to assume that the overall genetic situation is similar enough that if I’m right then plants too will lose genetic diversity with each new population split,
Data please. Support these kinds of statements with data.
Meanwhile please leave my personal experiences to me.
Personal experiences aren't data. You can keep them to yourself if you wish.
I believe I discovered a rule about how the processes of evolution work, the selective or subtractive processes. If that is the case it should apply across the board wherever those processes are operating.
That does not appear to be the case. I pointed out some examples where it doesn't appear to apply. So should it apply "across the board," or not?
In the case of dog breeding and other breeding programs I most certainly can. There is absolutely no doubt that breeding from selection of traits requires loss of genetic diversity. This is what makes domestic breeding such a good example for what must happen in all similar situations.
Then where is your data?
Well, it just so happens that I poked around a little and found this paper. It's not plants, it's not insects, it is exactly the subject you are talking about. Here are the basics:
They studied 100 microsatellite markers in 28 dog breeds and determined heterozygosity, percentage of loci in H-W equilibrium and % of total number of alleles in each breed.
Here is figure 2 where they have plotted the above data by year each breed was registered.
quote:
It was also of interest to determine if the number of alleles per breed differed relative to the totality of alleles observed in all breeds, and to what extent this was influenced by population size and time since registry recognition. The total number of alleles observed for all breeds and loci was 1,780. Within each breed, a range of 399 to 805 alleles per breed was found, with an overall average of 605 alleles (Table 1). The number of alleles per breed mirrored the level of heterozygosity (Figures 1 and 2). As a function of population size, the breeds with smaller populations had about 6% fewer alleles than the breeds with larger populations. When plotted as a function of time since recognition by a registry, the numbers of alleles observed per breed was lower for the earlier recognized breeds by about 7%.
Note that the earlier recognized breeds had 7% FEWER alleles on average than the more recent breeds. Also notice that the trend line for heterozygosity INCREASES as the breeds get younger. Both trends are in opposition to your premise.
Of course, Figure 2 uses time since registration, not time since the breed split off from a parent breed. So let's look at this phylogeny of dog breeds.
And let's compare that to table 1 from the above paper: (I deleted some breeds from the table because they weren't listed on the tree)(HBa is average breed heterozygosity; SDHa is standard deviation of HBa)
AKC group BreedHBa SDHa
Herding Pembroke Welsh corgi.630 .017
Border collie .669 .018
Australian shepherd.696.012
Hound Borzoi.605.021
Greyhound .648.017
NonsportingBulldog.581 .020
Chow chow .666 .017
American Eskimo dog .686 .014
SportingLabrador retriever .641.016
Golden retriever .657.016
Brittany spaniel .666.014
TerrierBull terrier .387 .021
Miniature bull terrier.474 .019
Jack Russell terrier.758.012
Toy DogsPug.566.017
Yorkshire terrier .684 .018
Papillon.698 .013
Pomeranian .705 .014
WorkingBoxer.474 .023
Doberman pinscher .527 .017
Akita .642 .018
So lets look at a couple of examples and compare their heterozygosity:
Labrador retrievers earliest then Golden retrievers: Prediction: Labrador > Golden
Data: Golden - .657; Labrador - .641 Conclusion: Falsified
Pomeranian earliest then Papillon then Pug. Prediction: Pomeranian > Papillon > Pug
Data: Pomeranian - .705; Papillon - .698; Pug - .566 Conclusion: Supports
Borzoi earliest then Greyhound. Prediction: Borzoi > Greyhound
Data: Borzoi - .605; Greyhound - .648 Conclusion: Falsified
Pembroke corgi earliest then Border collie then Australian sheep dog. Prediction: Pembroke > Border collie > Ausi sheep
Data: Pembroke - .630; collie - .669; Ausi - .696 Conclusion: Falsified
Awww Snap. It doesn't look good for the theory of genetic depletion.
because as you say it is impossible to measure genetic diversity in most cases and I would expect these examples to make the general case about genetic diversity.
No. I said the way you are expecting genetic diversity to be measured is all but impossible at this time. Researchers do genetic diversity studies all the time. They just don't measure every allele at every loci in every individual.
Your straw man version of my argument certainly wouldn’t challenge it.
So you keep saying that no one understands your argument, but is it not more likely that you don't understand the rebuttals?
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Edited by herebedragons, : clarification
Edited by herebedragons, : clarified relationship between Labradors and Goldens

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 10-19-2015 5:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 10-20-2015 1:48 AM herebedragons has replied

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


Message 179 of 259 (771094)
10-20-2015 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by herebedragons
10-19-2015 11:42 PM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
Since you think thousands of plant species disproves my argument, you DON'T understand it, as I said, since all that would mean is great genetic diversity in plants. I gave that as my evidence you don't understand it; you don't need to accuse me of making it up so I can win the debate.
OK, thanks for confirming plant genetics work the same. But surely the huge numbers of species shows a huge amount of genetic diversity. And what about the polyploidy? Is that a common phenomenon in plants?
As I believe I said I have to assume that the overall genetic situation is similar enough that if I’m right then plants too will lose genetic diversity with each new population split,
Data please. Support these kinds of statements with data.
As I think I made very clear in that post, there is no data, there is only the logic of the argument. If the genetics works the same the processes should be the same and the results should be the same. The examples I gave are meant to illustrate the rule. If you object to them then give your reasoning. Neither of us has data on these things. As you said, there is no way to measure loss of genetic diversity. [I see by the end of your post that you think I was asking for some measure that is impossible, but that's not true. I've said I'd look for fixed loci in the last population of a series such as a ring species. Your charts supposedly do something of the sort, but I'm not exactly sure what they are counting or how sure the line of descent is in each case. Please do make that clear. (see my ABE at bottom)]
I believe I discovered a rule about how the processes of evolution work, the selective or subtractive processes. If that is the case it should apply across the board wherever those processes are operating.
That does not appear to be the case. I pointed out some examples where it doesn't appear to apply. So should it apply "across the board," or not?
I thought I answered all your examples as not affecting my argument. If you think I didn't please explain.
As I also said about dog breeding, the fact that fixed loci has been used as the indicator of a pure breed is my evidence for loss of genetic diversity. It's absolutely logical.
Please HBD, don't give me bright white charts which are hard to read. Please just explain the point you think they make. Explain the numbers in your own words please.
As for the claim that recent breeds have a higher number of alleles, that could reflect the change in breeding practices from the severe selection methods they used to practice to the more careful attention to keeping the genetic diversity high enough to protect the animals' health. (in any case the idea that the actual line of descent is known is questionable. See ABE at bottom)
I can't read either of your charts and your list doesn't help matters. Please don't leave it to me to figure out what the numbers mean. You need to put it ALL in your own words what you are illustrating.
Again, I made it very clear that your examples in the earlier post do not challenge my argument. They don't. Stop accusing me of things. {Since you or Percy may think I'm wrong to say you are accusing me, here's what you said: "Of course we don't understand it, because if we did we would certainly abandon the ToE in favor of your much more well thought out approach." No, I said how I know you don't understand and you are imputing something else to me here.}
Now if there's anything in this post you insist does challenge it please break it down in your own words.
Thank you.
ABE: I looked up Golden Retriever since on your chart it is said to have been bred from the Labrador, and that is not what Wikipedia says:
Consequently, the best water spaniels were crossed with the existing retrievers, resulting in the establishment of the breed today known as the Golden Retriever.[30] The Golden Retriever was first developed near Glen Affric in Scotland, at "Guisachan", the highland estate of Dudley Marjoribanks, 1st Baron Tweedmouth.[31] For many years, what breeds were originally crossed was disputed, but in 1952, the publication of Marjoribanks' breeding records from 1835 to 1890 dispelled the myth concerning the purchase of a whole troupe of Russian tracker sheepdogs from a visiting circus, instead it details a careful line-breeding program.[27] Commonly, the breed is said to have originated from the Russian tracker.[32]
...The original cross was of a yellow-coloured retriever, 'Nous', with a Tweed Water Spaniel female dog, 'Belle'.[34] The Tweed Water Spaniel is now extinct, but was then common in the border country. Marjoribanks had purchased Nous in 1865 from an unregistered litter of otherwise black wavy-coated retriever pups. In 1868, this cross produced a litter that included four pups; these four became the basis of a breeding program which included the Irish Setter, the sandy-coloured Bloodhound, the St. John's water dog of Newfoundland, and two more wavy-coated black retrievers. The bloodline was also inbred and selected for trueness to Marjoribanks' idea of the ultimate hunting dog.
If the chart got that wrong perhaps it got other things wrong too. If you breed different animals together you get a hybrid and the allele count should go up of course. Also the article suggests that the actual line of descent of many breeds is not known.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by herebedragons, posted 10-19-2015 11:42 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 10-20-2015 9:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 191 by Admin, posted 10-20-2015 1:51 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 180 of 259 (771099)
10-20-2015 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
10-19-2015 4:54 PM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
It's exactly the same situation as having your golden retriever puppy show up mottled gray or your Freisian colt chocolate brown. They violate the breed and can't be sold.
To give a more detailed reply to this nonsense.
Firstly there is no way of "violating the breed". As I pointed out long ago, species are not artificially selected breeds.
Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm using the breeding situation as an example of the principle involved. Just as you wouldn't maintain your breed if you allowed alien alleles into it, nature wouldn't be producing the neat clearcut examples of species that it in fact does. You know, lions that ALL look amazingly just like lions and so on.
There is no set of required or forbidden traits, only those which the species actually has or does not have. And if a new trait should arise within the species, then the species includes that trait as one of the many variations.
Yeah, if, but in fact it doesn't happen much if at all and if it happened to any appreciable extent it WOULD change the look of a species. Let's not quibble over small degrees of change, just as in breeding you don't want to violate the breed, nature seems to be conservative about hoiding on to her "breeds" too.
Species are not homogenous because they are breeds. Breeds are artificially maintained. Dogs are a "hotch-potch" only by human efforts to create and maintain that state. Given the opportunity to interbreed the distinctive breeds would be lost. That is what real species are like.
Doesn't really seem to be the case though, does it? We force the mating of lions and tigers to get "ligers," but in nature it doesn't happen.
In truth species are not always homogenous.
Seems pretty safe to say the vast majority are.
Consider the peppered moth. The dark form is obviously distinct from the white, but both are the same species. Or another example, the yellow wagtail has a number of distinct variants, which freely interbreed.
Yes and you can add the light and dark pocket mice. But I think at least the moths and the mice are a special situation where there is strong selective pressure. I don't know anything about the wagtail bird.
And, of course, mutations need not be obvious at all. The genes governing the immune system display a lot of variation - as you may remember there are many distinct alleles in humans - many more than the maximum of four allowed by your Biblical literalism. Yet they are not at all visible to visual inspection.
Yes, that has to entail some legit form of mutation, but the vast majority of mutations that occur aren't in sex cells anyway, and most are not beneficial either so why keep talking about them as if there was some sort of equation mutation=allele? You don't know that, you aren't offering evidence either, you are just stating the party line as usual.
So, no. it is not even true that all mutations would be rejected by breeders - even breeds have some variations and species have more.
Modern breeders aren't as picky as oldtime breeders were. But most of what are called mutations aren't mutations, they're just rare alleles getting expressed, and most mutations aren't desirable anyway so again, what's with this mutation=allele equation?
But it wouldn't matter if breeders would reject every single one. Species are not artificially defined breeds - they are what they are and if that conflicts with any human ideas of what they "should" be then it is the human ideas that are wrong. The whole idea of "violating the breed" is simply not applicable and to say otherwise is a major error.
Oh just make some kind of simple effort to get what I mean instead of blasting away with your silly straw man exaggeration. I meant what I said above: species in the wild DO appear to maintain homogeneity. That's how we know a lion from a kittycat.
BUT GO BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS POST: If you add a bunch of mutations after a species has formed you WILL lose the species. If you add as much as you all WANT to add for fear I'm right that otherwise it's the end of evolution, then you WILL destroy any species that has formed. Please get these things in CONTEXT.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2015 4:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 3:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 188 by Pressie, posted 10-20-2015 8:17 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2015 2:15 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