How do you define the word Evolution?

Let us note first that Dunstan's definition is very different from the others and thus statements relating to the other distinctions simply do not apply.Second, let us note that this quote does not tell us what measures of functional information is statistical significance Dunstan is using - nor how they relate.Third since a sequence of changes to small to be considered statistically significant could add up to a statistically significant change the assertion of a qualitative distinction is obviously false. It is almost certainly true that repeated "microevolution" can add up to "macroevolution". The only way to avoid that is to insist that Dunstan is talking only about single mutations, in which case it would be far better to use the terms micro- and macro- mutation to indicate this rather than misleadingly talking about evolution.

How does it compare to Filichenko's definition - which you don't bother to quote ?And how do you divorce the question of micro-evolution versus macro-evolution from the definition of evolution ?

quote:

---

When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact

---

Wrong. They would be more likely referring to the mechanisms by which life changes over time. The evolution of antibiotic resistence being an example of those mechanisms in action.

quote:

---

Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species.

---

In experimental demonstrations of antibiotic resistance it is quite common to start with a clonal population. If selection were all there was to it, there would be no differing strains to select from.

quote:

---

Evolution requires more than just natural selection, so it is erroneous to cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution.

---

And there IS more to antibiotic resistance - the resistance is the product of mutation.So now we have established that you were wrong, perhaps you will be less quick to throw false accusations in the future.

Of course it is made up. Domestic breeding does not produce new species. Therefore the idea that there is nothing more to speciation than domestic breeding must be considered suspect. if you were thinking about the facts you would have to include that one.Even the idea that domestic breeders don't want mutations is made up. Remember the Scotch Fold cat ?

quote:

---

I didn't use the term speciation, I'm focused on the change which is what evolution is, getting new phenotypes, which requires the loss of genetic diversity.

---

Yet if evolution is to account for speciation - and for the common ancestry of large taxonomic groupings it needs more than that. Assuming that there is no more is not something you can derive from domestic breeding.

quote:

---

I carefully said "old fashioned" breeding

---

Really old fashioned breeding would not care about "pure breeding". The original breeders were interested in the uses that they could make of an animal - they would preserve traits they found useful no matter where they were mutations or not. Which is much more like evolution. The idea that evolution must act like an obsessive kennel club breeder is not only made up - it is obviously false.Indeed, since modern breeding is successful how can you ignore it ? Saying that evolution must act like one particular sort of breeder when other sorts succeed is strange indeed - and thinking about breeding alone should surely call that into question.And, of course it should be noted that if you speed up a subtractive process and leave an additive process running at the same rate - let alone work directly against the additive process - you will deplete whatever resource is involved (the equilibrium point will be lowered). We should expect a loss of genetic variation from intensive breeding even if your ideas are false.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Universal common ancestry could be dropped from evolutionary theory without any significant changes - if the evidence justified it. It's a historical contingency, not an essential part of the theory in any way.Your definition is obviously incorrect, for that reason.

Funny how your modification only makes your definition even less accurate.Look, you can't simply take the common scientific view of what happened as defining a theory which is primarily about how such things happene - let alone tacking on an even which is not described by the theory. It would be like defining the theory of gravity in terms of the motions of the planets but leaving out any mention of the force of gravity itself - and then tacking on ideas about the origin of the matter that the planets are made of.

quote:

---

Any gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles," most of which of course don't do anything, is one of those parts of the genetic code that is especially prone to mutations. So such mutated "alleles" that get passed on are going to easily accumulate more mutations until finally they do something decidedly unbeneficial to the host. It's inevitable since mutations are inherently destructive.

---

If there are a lot of variations it is more to do with selection than mutation rate. Which suggests that the gene tolerates quite a lot of variation - or even that variation may be beneficial. The most variable genes seem to be related to the immune system - and I can certainly see reasons why variation might be beneficial there (the weakness of a monoculture should be well known)

quote:

---

Are you talking about variations in the function of the gene or in the sequences of its many alleles?

---

Not every sequence variation gets counted as an allele, you know. If you want to count those you'd have even more variety to explain.

quote:

---

...and I'm supposing that those alleles are just the usual useless mutations, everything from "neutral" or having no effect on the function of the gene, or destructive

---

"Destructive" variations are only likely where the function of the gene - or rather the protein it codes for - is detrimental. Again, selection is a major factor in what we see.

quote:

---

I'm further supposing that a gene only has those four natural alternatives or alleles that would have been possessed by Adam and Eve or any two individuals.

---

Making false assumptions will tend to lead you to false conclusions, although I don't think this one matters greatly apart from prejudicing your thinking.Anyway, I am saying that your point is wrong. Genes which gave a lot of variants must tolerate variation well - or selection would reduce the number of variants. And there are even genes where it is likely beneficial to the species to have many variants.So genes with many variations are less likely to be "harmed" by mutation.However your original point as stated was even worse. An existing allele can only become harmful through environmental changes, and there is no way to say that environmental changes are particularly likely to target genes with many alleles (and no way to say that they would be more harmful to later variations than to a presumed original)

quote:

---

Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive.

---

You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful.

quote:

---

Such as?

---

As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease.

quote:

---

You keep using that term "variations" in a vague way. If a gene can only have four naturally occurring variations, all the different "alleles" that have a neutral effect would be ticking time bombs as I say above, prone to accumulate more mutations until finally they threaten the organism. And get selected out, but meanwhile lots more of those are accumulating.

---

That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made)

quote:

---

This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment.

---

It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ? That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful.What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology.

quote:

---

The more mutations the more chance of something harmful developing because mutations are inherently destructive. Neutral changes are just ticking time bombs. They destroy some part of the sequence but the function survives. If more mutations destroy more of the sequence what can it do but lead ultimately to something harmful.

---

You are still talking nonsense. Mutations are not "inherently destructive", neutral changes need not be "ticking time bombs" (and since loss of function can be beneficial even if neutral changes did lose unneeded function there is no way to say that that function would ever be necessary again)

quote:

---

But not by a series of diseases that occur down the generations.

---

If you are saying that it only improves the odds of survival - significantly - that is still a very good thing.

quote:

---

Well, here what you are doing is asserting your different theory of mutations

---

In fact I was not.

quote:

---

I would think the proliferation of genetic diseases in the population would eventually disabuse you of your theory but I guess we haven't arrived at that point yet

---

How could it do that ? (And isn't it more likely that any "proliferation" is due to our help and support to the sufferers?). An existing neutral allele won't suddenly produce a genetic disease unless something changes to make it do so.

quote:

---

My theory is that all mutations are destructive, that the genome was originally created to vary through four alternative gene forms and no more, and that all changes to those forms/alleles are inherently destructive even if there is enough flexibility to allow most of them to make no changes at all in the function

---

If the change makes no difference in the function at all it can hardly be considered destructive, or a "ticking time bomb". That should be obvious.

quote:

---

What?

---

Alleles don't suddenly become harmful for no reason.

quote:

---

I'm talking about a "neutral" mutation/allele that accumulates more mutations.

---

Which would be a deleterious mutation - or series of deleterious mutations - generating a new allele (or a series of new alleles). Not an existing allele becoming harmful. The two really are quite distinct scenarios.

quote:

---

What you are calling "tolerant of change" describes what is otherwise called "prone to mutations."

---

Not really. The existence of variant alleles is more dependent on selection failing to eliminate them than mutation creating them.

quote:

---

Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more.

---

That would be the "bias" that suggests that if you want to use selective breeding as a model for evolution you should look at those breeders whose methods are closest to evolution in the wild - instead of deliberately excluding them from consideration ?Edited by PaulK, : Correct tag

That doesn't change the fact that other breeders better represent evolution in the wild and would be better models if accuracy was your intent.

in other words you picked a poor example because it supported your opinion. It is hardly "bias" to point that out or disagree.

quote:

---

Indeed it is bias, aimed at obscuring the point that ultimately evolution in the wild must eventually run out of genetic diversity just as traditional domestic breeding also does, through the inevitable series of selection processes, both natural selection and random selection by migration.

---

Pointing out that the evidence does not support your assertion is hardly obscuring the point. Nor is disagreeing with your opinion adequate to support an accusation of bias.

quote:

---

Side trips that create hybrid zones and reintroduce gene flow, as well as mutations that are assumed to reverse the losses but couldn't possibly,* just distract from and obscure the ultimate effect.

---

And again you are simply passing off your opinions as facts. You certainly do not know that mutations do not occur frequently enough to offset the effects of selection - that is simply something you made up.And I would suggest that disputing facts is rather a clear indication of bias.