|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, it isn't. The variations will be smaller (so that they would likely be acceptable) and there is no buyer and no selling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faith claims:
If subpopulations form from the subpopulations, as in a ring species, that line of possible variations can ultimately reach genetic depletion, beyond which any further evolution is impossible for lack of the genetic fuel as it were. But as I have shown this is false. Evolution slows down as variation declines but it will not stop. And
What this implies is that the genome of each species defines the limit of that species' possible variations, beyond which no further evolution is possible.
Which is the same falsehood. In reality "genetic depletion" is never seen to result from selection and will not result from normal drift. It is only the bottlenecks produced by severe population loss, or by breeding practices that are seen to produce such problems. The problems are largely a result of "linkage" - bad alleles close to good, which tend to be transmitted together. Natural selection, with it's slower pace has more opportunities to break the link and lose the bad (which will be selected against)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faith, is it really that important that people agree with you - even if you happen to be wrong?
One of your biggest problems here is that many of us care about the truth and you just want to drive a bulldozer over all that. It's certainly the reason for the most recent Admin intervention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
No Faith, all you have is an argument that you are desperate to believe.
You are unable to answer the objections and because you cannot you retreat into blind belief. And make up excuses to hide from the truth. And that is why you fail to convince anybody. The fact that you can't defend your argument may convince you of its truth. But it's hardly going to convince anyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The same way that wolves ALL look amazingly like wolves, despite having the genetic variation to produce so many different breeds of dog. Seriously Faith, the homogeneity of species is not due to the same lack of variation found in breeds of dog.
quote:They aren't breeds, certainly not in the sense of purebred pedigree dogs. They are species. And you forget that I am talking about a long term trend of constant genetic diversity (in successful species). Even if you argue that there is a limit on how much genetic diversity a species is "allowed" that limit is not going to decline. quote: I.e. The division between (those) species is not artificially maintained - hardly a counter-example. Where species are willing to interbreed the results are different (e.g. Introduced North American Ruddy Duck, hybridising with European White Headed Ducks. To the point where the latter was threatened with effective extinction)
quote: The fact that there is a group of genes - where diversity is especially important, and where mutation almost certainly contributes to diversity - and yet have no visible affect on appearance is not evidence that genetic variation does not have to produce visible differences in appearance ? I guess you could have said that I was offering proof rather than evidence, but anything else would be ridiculous.
quote: A point I answered. So much for "not getting" your argument.
quote: The only way to "lose" a species, other than extinction is for it to merge into another. Adding a few minor variations - to those already existing - is not going to do that. And you cannot sensibly argue that there is a limit on the "allowed" variation within a species below the variation actually existing within real species - but you are arguing just that. Even those variations that do cause obvious differences in appearance do not "lose" the species. The King cheetah mutation did not "lose" the cheetah. So IN CONTEXT your claim is clearly and obviously false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: As I've said quite often - even in this thread - I expect the majority of the diversity to be added AFTER the new species has formed. So no, I am not arguing that the decline in genetic diversity will be "corrected" at that time. And your "scattered phenotypes" assertion is still wrong for the reasons I have already given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
If you're going to include all variations then species are "scattered phenotypes", which makes the whole point irrelevant. Unless and until you provide some reason to single out "new" variations (which now apparently includes variations found in other populations of the species!) you don't have a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Western Yellow Wagtail
This species' systematics and phylogeny is extremely confusing. Literally dozens of subspecies have been described at one time or another, and some 15-20 are currently considered valid depending on which author reviews them. In addition, the citrine wagtail (M. citreola) forms a cryptic species complex with this bird;[3] both taxa as conventionally delimited are paraphyletic in respect to each other. The populations of the Beringian region are sometimes separated as eastern yellow wagtail (M. tschutschensis).
Or to put it simply, the appearance is so variable that many sub-species have been proposed - and while the "real" number is much lower there's still some disagreement on how many there are. At the same time another, related species is indistinguishable by appearance. It's complicated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024