|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's how increases in genetic diversity are proved by math, by simply assuming it's possible when it's not. But mutation does occur. This is not an assumption; that is known. Models that take this into account are in that respect correct; models that ignore it are a fine example of what is meant by "garbage in, garbage out".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, it's a subtle point. To the extent that a white guy with a tan can be considered to be phenotypically different from a guy with the same genes for skin color but an indoor job ... well, I think we can neglect that for the purposes of this discussion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You have a big problem with context. The context is that selection, random or otherwise, gets new gene frequencies, new gene frequencies bring out new phenotypes, getting new phenotypes requires losing alleles, reproductive isolation of these phenotypes can produce a new subspecies which must trend toward reduced genetic diversity as a result. This is evolution. There's no point in examining other contexts when I know this is evolution and it costs genetic diversity. And since mutations add diversity, there is no reason why this process should ever stop.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree with this post in general. But I still take the position that mutations aren't going to make a difference in the outcome of reduced genetic diversity in an evolving population. You could double the genetic diversity in a stable population and still, when selection or the random selection of the splitting off of a subpopulation occurs, new phenotypes are going to emerge simply from the new higher gene frequencies, and former phenotypes that are now low frequency will fade away, while alleles competing with the new phenotypes will necessarily also be reduced and perhaps disappear. You may (hypothetically) have lots of mutated alleles to begin with, but when you are getting evolution there's no more genetic increase, just reduction. And evolution IS the point, isn't it? You can, if you wish, contrary to all accepted usage, exclude mutations from your own private definition of evolution. But this does not prevent them from happening, so you still have to deal with that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's like the fossil record and the strata are evidence for the Flood, it's a general compatibility between the observed physical facts and the Biblical revelation. We know you're bluffing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't know what your problem is, so I'll just ask how you expect to get something other than the BB's, bb's and Bb's of a particular genotype in the process of microevolution. When mutation produces a 𝔅 or a β or a ƃ.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh but they are, in the general sense I said. Dead DNA great evidence for the Fall ... Be specific. How does this notion of "the Fall" predict that organisms will carry only those pseudogenes predicted by the theory of evolution and no others?
The billions of dead things found in the strata are superb evidence for the Flood. Be specific. How does this notion of "the Flood" predict that the fossil record will exhibit exactly that order predicted by the theory of evolution and not some other?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The way added mutations could mess up a breed is by changing major characteristics. If you've been working for decades to get a perfect purebred Whozit you don't want a mutation to pop up for a Whatzit. You DO NOT WANT this new trait in your breed. What's so hard to understand about that? And if the laws of nature conformed to the desires of people trying to produce a perfect purebred Whozit ... then the world would be a very different place, and your point would have some relevance to the discussion. But they don't, it isn't, and it doesn't; and mutations occur.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations ... My friend Mr. Direct Observation says different.
... but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild. But diversity does not prevent us from recognizing a species or a breed. We can recognize humans as a species, despite us coming in all different colors. We can recognize Canis lupus as a species, despite the vast diversity exhibited by its breeds ...
... and we can recognize a breed despite the diversity that it exhibits. For example, these are all chihuahuas, and they are all recognizably chihuahuas. (And breeders, so far from extirpating the diversity, welcomed it.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I think you've mistaken Mr. Evo Bias for that friend. You assume mutations without any warrant for assuming it. We directly observe them. That's kinda the opposite of assuming things.
I can hardly believe you are that dense. Perhaps it's intentional. Or maybe you ARE that dense. EACH of those breeds has its own specific genetic substrate that EXCLUDES the genetic diversity in the ENTIRE REST OF THE DOG SPECIES. Each has its own set of characteristics and the genetic material that underlies them. Each has ONLY its own genotype for its own phenotype. It DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the other breeds. There may be many different versions of chihuahuas but each has its own genotype and not that of the others. There is a specific recipe you could say for each breed. And if you are a breeder of a particular breed you don't want the other characteristics popping up after you've established it. Sure, one breed is not another breed. A chihuahua with the genes of a dalmatian would not be an unusual chihuahua, it would be a dalmatian. A human with the genes of a chimp would be a chimp. A dog with the genes of a giraffe would be a giraffe. And yet the fact remains that humans, dogs, and chihuahuas exhibit diversity and yet are recognizable in spite of that diversity.
Dogs are marvelously genetically diverse AS A KIND, or family or Species or whatever the category is, which is why so many breeds can be developed from that Kind. Mutations had nothing to do with their diversity, it's built in to the Kind. But to get each breed requires LOSING the genetic stuff for all the other traits that don't belong to the breed but continue in other breeds and the Dog Population as a whole. Why is this so hard to get? I understand the stuff you've made up, I am just not convinced of it, due to my familiarity with the facts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The breeds do NOT exhibit high GENETIC diversity. They can't, because they DON'T have all those genes for other traits. Each breed has to have low genetic diversity unless it's been mixed with others. Now look at the pictures of chihuahuas again. Notice how much more diverse they look than, for example, wolves?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are talking about PHENOTYPIC diversity. Your doing that raises all kinds of suspicions of course, since I couldn't have been clearer over at least the last ten years that I'm talking about GENETIC diversity. How do you suppose you get phenotypic diversity without genetic diversity? Do you think those chihuahuas have been dyed?
Each chihuahua DOESN'T have the stuff for the other chihuahuas ... Well yes, woman. Of course not. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. Genetic diversity does not mean that one particular animal has the genes for a different animal. It is a property of the breed, or the population, or the species as a whole. If you're now going to try to redefine genetic diversity so that you can say it doesn't exist because each particular animal only has its own genes and no other, then ... why would you even bother? The theory of evolution does not depend in any way on the proposition that an animal has genes other than its own.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, they're both populations that began with small numbers and continued in reproductive isolation. There may have been other factors but those are certain and primary. But the resulting populations are not merely subsets of the parent populations. So something else must have been "primary".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's the starting from small numbers that causes the new gene frequencies that are the basis for the changes in the population ... But isolation can't make something out of nothing. It's true that if only people with blue eyes were marooned on an island, that would give you a population of blue-eyed people. And it's also true in principle that if only wolves that are Great Danes were marooned on an island, that would give you a population of Great Danes. But there aren't any wolves that are Great Danes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think the word is actually "irrefutable".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024