Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 364 of 455 (786035)
06-14-2016 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2016 10:07 PM


Re: Mutations are not alleles
No it doesn't and if you understood the argument you'd know why it doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by jar, posted 06-14-2016 10:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 366 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 10:31 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 372 of 455 (786052)
06-15-2016 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2016 10:31 PM


Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
No amount of arguing that a process that by definition increases genetic diversity doesn't increase genetic diversity will stop it from increasing genetic diversity.
To get a new subspecies, species or breed requires the loss of genetic diversity. If it isn't lost or at least reduced, you don't get a subspecies, species or breed. In nature the purest way this occurs is by geographic isolation. Domestic breeders do it by intentional mating. An increase in genetic diversity in either case will blur the emerging phenotypes, and as long as reproductive isolation is maintained there is no reason to have an increase.
The occasional mutation, assuming it gets expressed as a phenotype, is easily removed from the breed. But most won't get expressed as phenotypes. Mutations that do that are rather rare as I understand it. And most are something neither nature nor the domestic breeder would find helpful anyway. You get a breed or a new species by LOSS of genetic diversity. That's how it happens.
If you don't want a breed you don't have to have one, you can have all the genetic diversity you like, but enough to make up for the loss required to bring out a new breed would destroy the breed entirely. If that's what you want as a breeder, you can have it, you just won't have your breed, you'll have something else.
In nature if gene flow between populations continues while a population has at least partial reproductive isolation, you may get a recognizable breed, but reproductive isolation that prevents gene flow should bring out the most dramatic new phenotypes.
In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all. You'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes.
Possibly the blue wildebeest emerged from the black by some of the black simply getting separated from the parent black population for some number of generations while their collective new gene frequencies brought out the blueish coloring, the new body build and the new antler style. Some gene flow might not impede the process too much but the ideal condition, or at least the clearest condition to explain, is complete reproductive isolation for producing the new species of wildebeest.
It's a very simple and obvious formula: losing genetic diversity is what gets a new subspecies in the wild or a breed in domesticity. There's no problem with this unless you lose a LOT of genetic diversity. And a new species/population such as the blue wildebeest, could in fact be stable for hundreds of years. This is all hypothetical, I'm talking about how it could have happened. Reality is usually messier, of course, involving continued gene flow for instance, but the trend that brings out new species is the LOSS of genetic diversity.
If you have a large population with lots of genetic diversity and many viable mutations, it will be a motley collection of many phenotypes. It could only become a new species if selection or some kind of reproductive isolation favored a particular set of phenotypes out of the whole collection of phenotypes, over many generations, creating a new subpopulation with its own characteristics, perhaps even within the greater population. And that subpopulation will lose the genotypes for the NONfavored or unselected phenotypes, as those for the favored/selected come to characterize the new subpopulation. There is no way to get a new phenotypic presentation without such a loss.
I really don't know if you are obtuse or willfully pretending to be. If pretending, that's understandable, of course, in a diehard evo who couldn't bear to find out the ToE is wrong and there is a God who constructed this biological pattern, because this is definitely a pattern that contradicts the ToE and shows that it could never work.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:18 AM Faith has replied
 Message 394 by Taq, posted 06-17-2016 12:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 411 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2016 5:54 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 376 of 455 (786057)
06-15-2016 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Tangle
06-15-2016 3:40 AM


Epistemological digression
Of course if there are areas of reality that aren't subject to scientific testing because they have nothing to do with the physical world but another realm of reality altogether, and you've arbitrarily rejected them for simply being a different kind of reality, that's pretty irrational of you isn't it?
There are no areas of reality that are beyond scientific testing. This is science's job. If you can show me a reality that is not being examined by science, I'll test it myself for you.
But the other reality I have in mind CAN'T be "shown" to you because it isn't physical. It IS beyond scientific testing because it isn't physical. How would you test for the reality of nonphysical beings like angels and demons or "ghosts?" People try and the results are ridiculous because these, if real, would be nonphysical and not subject to testing. An explorer of space by telescope or travel could brag they've been way out there and never seen God, proving there is no God, but if God is invisible Spirit the expectation of seeing Him is irrational and ludicrous.
You can't scientifically test for any of this. The only way we know these things exist is through witnesses who have been there when some of it has "manifested" in physical form, either a spiritual being like an angel or demon, or the demonstration of power in miraculous events. Did Jesus feed thousands of people from a few loaves and fishes? The only proof possible is believing the witnesses who saw it happen. Did the resurrected Jesus appear to the apostles? Did an angel appear and talk to the prophet Daniel? You either believe the witnesses or you don't. If you disbelieve you haven't proved anything. Spiritual beings choose to manifest or not, or God chooses it, you can't invent a test for something that has a mind and a will to foil your test. God gave sparing evidences through witnesses for those who believe; He has no interest in convincing people who refuse to believe the witnesses.
so that whatever is true in them is always being subsumed under a Big Fat Lie that skews it all beyond any real scientific usefulness. The science in them would stand without the lie, but that would require some intricate epistemological surgery.
It's not a single lie though is it Faith? If it was a single issue, it's vaguely possible that it could be wrong and if it was wrong it would be corrected - because all errors in science ultimately get corrected.
They can't be corrected if they can't even be proved in the first place, as nothing that has to do with the remote past can be proved. It remains hypothetical and you believe it because you WANT to believe it, and because you can invent multiple scenarios that seem plausible to you. You just have to interpret the phenomena encountered in Evo-friendly terms. There's no way to prove them wrong, or any seeming wrongness can always be interpreted away anyway because you are dealing with things that can no longer be observed. Sure you can prove that a set of bones must have belonged to a particular kind of beast, but you can't prove anything about how the bones got there, you can only construct Likely Stories. You can't PROVE past EVENTS. The Flood explains the strata and the fossils beautifully, but you don't want to believe the Flood occurred, that's all there is to it.
It's actually multitudes of 'lies' in all independant scientific disciplines that all rather miraculously converge on a single 'truth'. So physics, astronomy geology and biology all provide supporting evidence for an old earth and none for a young earth.
This is actually not so, it's evo wishfulness. Creationists have given lots of evidence for a young earth, and I have done so here as well. Geology and biology offer many such evidences. My own arguments give such evidences.
Are all the millions of scientists involved in a massive conspiracy to corrupt and lie about everything from Rocks to space travel?
Rocks for sure, yes, they deceive themselves and all the rest of us about the rocks, that are easily explained in terms of a worldwide Flood within a few thousand years. Worry about space travel after you've appreciated that the evidence for the Flood is everywhere on the planet.
It's pure fantasy Faith, it's utterly impossible for you to be right and literally millions of man-years of cross-disciplinary, peer-reviewed science to be totally wrong in every aspect of its work.
They have a great knowledge of many scientific facts; what they don't have is a viable theory about the events that produced those facts. The theory they do have is the fantasy.
If it was wrong great chunks of our technology would not work.
This is where you need to perform the epistemological surgery I was talking about. Technology has nothing whatever to do with the Old Earth or the ToE. Throw those away and technology stands on its own.
Even you at your deepest level of denial and delusion must know this.
I'm sorry, what I know I've sketched out above. The delusion is on the side of the ToE and the Old Earth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 3:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:23 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 377 of 455 (786060)
06-15-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by PaulK
06-15-2016 10:18 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
It's pretty unlikely that you'd get the exact mutations needed even to restore the lost phenotypic variations (of a typical case - phenotypic changes are not essential to speciation) let alone restore interfertility.
This is true.
And yet if we still have a phenotypically distinct population that does not interbreed with the parent population, then of course we have a new species. That should be obvious.
How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations? To get phenotypic distinction you HAVE to lose the genetic substrate for the phenotypes that aren't part of the new phenotypically distinct population, losing mutations or whatever else doesn't contribute to that distinctive phenotypic presentation.
So why would it be "obtuse" to reject your claim ? On the face of it, it is an obvious falsehood.
You need to stop calling me a liar. My argument is perfectly honest and consistent and I disagree with your theory honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 381 of 455 (786066)
06-15-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Tangle
06-15-2016 11:23 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Oh brother. You confuse reality with physicality. Sure, that way you can just ignore the whole other realm of the spirit.
Sorry, there is no way to reliably test the spiritual so your claim that it's been done and disproved it is a sad delusion.
But as I said there is lots of evidence from witnesses to the phenomena you claim is nonexistent, and witness evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not. Try believing the best attested witness reports some time, it should be an eye-opening revelation for you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:46 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 383 of 455 (786069)
06-15-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Tangle
06-15-2016 11:46 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Miracles, prophecies and prayer you claimed to have been tested. You can't test these things. Prayer isn't always answered, or the answer is not what you asked for, so how could you prove that? God is sovereign, He does what He judges to be right whether it meets our desires or not.
There is no reason miracles would leave any lasting evidence, so you have to trust the witnesses. There is no way to test them.
Prophecies have been fulfilled many times according to the Bible but you still have to believe the prophets are being honest and if you refuse to believe that you'll never see the fulfilled prophecies. There are "theologians" who refuse to believe that prophecy is possible so they reinterpret the prophecies to be lies by the prophets invented after the events they prophesied. Sure, that way you'll never see a fulfilled prophecy.
That's all you're doing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:46 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2016 12:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 385 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 12:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 386 of 455 (786073)
06-15-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Coyote
06-15-2016 12:07 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.
A true prophet needn't worry.
Isaiah prophesied even the name of the Persian king --Cyrus -- who would centuries later, after the Babylonian exile, decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The prophecy is in Isaiah 44:28, fulfilled as reported in 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1, 3 4, 5, 6.
The prophet Daniel prophesied about the future empires that would succeed the Babylonian: the Medo-Persian, Greece under Alexander, and the Roman Empire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2016 12:07 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:43 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 387 of 455 (786074)
06-15-2016 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Tangle
06-15-2016 12:34 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
There's a big difference between your "just believe" and my "believe the witnesses."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 12:34 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 389 of 455 (786076)
06-15-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by PaulK
06-15-2016 12:43 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
Complain to Tangle. I'm not interested in pursuing this topic myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:52 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 391 of 455 (786078)
06-15-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by PaulK
06-15-2016 12:52 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
You really need to rein in your gratuitous snide remarks.
Tangle started it in Message 352

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 1:35 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 396 of 455 (786429)
06-21-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Taq
06-17-2016 12:57 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
In order to get a new species, you need new mutations to appear in the population so that they two populations diverge over time. Mutations are what produces the divergence between the populations.
I understand that is the theory. My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in, and because nonselected traits must be lost for the selected traits to emerge at those loci, over time there is a trend to loss of the genetic stuff that would make further evolution possible. You aren't going to get further change from the loci that don't affect the main appearance of the creature: that is, all those loci that code for secondary or internal or invisible traits. The divergence of phenotypes is due completely to new combinations of preexisting alleles, and the divergence is limited by the necessity for loss of competing traits. You can get two populations evolving in entirely different directions but only up to the point that they no longer have genetic diversity for further variation or evolution. Even if you had constant input of mutations all you could ever get is traits from those particular mutations that are selected, while all the rest are lost to the evolving creature, so that eventually no more evolution is possible in that evolving line.
For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps did not have a mixture of the exact alleles found in the human and chimp populations. The vast majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to different mutations that occurred in each lineage after they split from their common ancestor.
Yes, that's the theory but it's not the reality and you have no evidence that it ever did our could happen, it's ALL theory, ALL assumption. You can only get variations or differences within a Species or Kind, and there the differences are due to new combinations of new gene frequencies, and for them to emerge as a new species requires that competing alleles be eliminated from the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Taq, posted 06-17-2016 12:57 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2016 11:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 399 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2016 11:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 408 by Taq, posted 06-22-2016 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 397 of 455 (786430)
06-21-2016 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by PaulK
06-21-2016 3:38 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2016 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:40 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 402 of 455 (786489)
06-22-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by PaulK
06-22-2016 12:56 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
You haven't proved one thing so stop claiming it.
You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything
What is this, another semantic pretense to be right? Locus refers to a gene which governs a particular trait or traits. How would you prefer I say that? The form of the gene does the coding, but when is there not a form of the gene at the locus? What kind of word games are you playing?
and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think.
I make a point of keeping it simple because the complexities aren't relevant. I've many times mentioned that there may be many genes controlling one trait or one gene affecting many, and there are certainly complexities involving dominance and recessive. All the complexities do is make the route more circuitous to the same end.
And your understanding of evolution is equally poor.
It's sufficient for the purpose. Especially since the ToE is made up of assumptions and conjurings and very little actual reality.
External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious.
The point was that the internal or invisible traits do not create a species, it's the appearance that leads to that designation. If you have an animal that looks exactly the same as another except for changes in the blood chemistry or something like that you'll identify both as the same species. My point was that when all the loci for the salient characteristics, i.e. the appearance, are approaching or at homozygosity, this idea that mutations in other parts of the genome will provide the necessary genetic diversity to make up for the losses brought about by creating the species in the first place, is untenable. But those losses are where it counts, the other parts of the genome are not. And it's a silly idea anyway that you'd only get changes to the other parts of the genome, or enough mutations to matter after the extreme losses that brought the creature to homozygosity in the first place. All grasping at straws.
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 401 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 403 of 455 (786490)
06-22-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by PaulK
06-22-2016 12:40 AM


Re: A serious question for Faith
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions
False.
Message 372
Read all the posts on that subject. The point is that to give the answers he gives means he hasn't a clue about the argument I'm making. If you understand it then you know adding mutations won't change the outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:48 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 406 of 455 (786495)
06-22-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by PaulK
06-22-2016 2:48 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
You can't just say that adding genetic diversity proves my argument wrong when the argument is specificallyl that genetic diversity MUST be reduced for a new species to emerge.
I guess you don't understand it either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 3:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024