Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the creationist model explain the data?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 67 (808154)
05-08-2017 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
05-08-2017 2:02 PM


Here's my laboratory experiment which I've mentioned before:
Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity.
There have been several, mostly with fruit flies (short generations, DNA easily extracted).
See fruit fly experiments dna diversity - Google Search
Browse at your leisure, but there have been significant changes to their DNA over the period they have been done
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 21 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 36 of 67 (811553)
06-09-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:17 AM


Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.
What I said was:
(Faith): Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity.
There have been several, mostly with fruit flies (short generations, DNA easily extracted).
See fruit fly experiments dna - Google Search...
Browse at your leisure, but there have been significant changes to their DNA over the period they have been done
Now I could go down the list and then list every one ... and the difference would be?
The point is that there are hundreds of studies. Curiously they all tend to discredit Faith's thesis about genetic diversity dwindling because they show mutations and new traits.
But here's one:
quote:
Fruit flies in the laboratory
Chromosomal theory of inheritance
After a frustrating and fruitless two-year search for Drosophila with different characteristics, white-eyed flies suddenly appeared among Thomas Morgan’s normal, red-eyed flies. To find out more about these white-eyed flies, Thomas carried out crosses between them and the red-eyed flies. Through these early experiments he found that all of the white-eyed flies being produced were males, there were no white-eyed females at all.
Thomas continued his work looking at a number of different traits in the Drosophila and in 1915 he published his theory Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, acknowledging that he agreed with Mendel’s concept of dominant and recessive traits. In his work he introduced the concept of genes carrying hereditary information and explained the discovery that certain characteristics were linked to sex. He also revealed that different combinations of traits arise from changes occurring in the chromosomes during reproduction.
A gene mutated causing white eyes, recessive and sex linked, but still it increased diversity.
Here's another:
quote:
Fruit flies diversify their offspring in response to parasite infection
Abstract
The evolution of sexual reproduction is often explained by Red Queen dynamics: Organisms must continually evolve to maintain fitness relative to interacting organisms, such as parasites. Recombination accompanies sexual reproduction and helps diversify an organism’s offspring, so that parasites cannot exploit static host genotypes. Here we show that Drosophila melanogaster plastically increases the production of recombinant offspring after infection. The response is consistent across genetic backgrounds, developmental stages, and parasite types but is not induced after sterile wounding. Furthermore, the response appears to be driven by transmission distortion rather than increased recombination. Our study extends the Red Queen model to include the increased production of recombinant offspring and uncovers a remarkable ability of hosts to actively distort their recombination fraction in rapid response to environmental cues.
Increasing reproductive inaccuracy ("transmission distortion") causing more mutations to increase diversity in response to ecological stress.
Such fun.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM CRR has not replied

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


Message 40 of 67 (811623)
06-09-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by CRR
06-09-2017 7:45 PM


When there are a thousand studies that show diversification of fruit flies, a single reference is inadequate to show the number of such studies. This argument that diversity always decreases is so much toast in the real world that the sheer number of such studies is like an avalanche to bury the poser.
That's what you seem to miss in your whining about getting a bing (not google - they track your uses for ad companies) search.
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 39 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 7:45 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 1:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 44 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:08 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 45 of 67 (811774)
06-12-2017 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by CRR
06-12-2017 4:08 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies.
Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."
Then Jonathan Wells lies hyperbolically for christ.
See Message 36 for examples, one from 1915 that shows a mutation causing white eyes arising. Now in Jonathan Wells' view this may be "defective" but the eyes work as well as the red ones.
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 44 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:08 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 6:16 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 47 of 67 (811783)
06-12-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by CRR
06-12-2017 6:16 AM


Fruit Flies and diversity in the lab
Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect. If it worked "as well" then it would not be eliminated from wild populations.
"We further show that white mutant flies are not only optomotor blind but also dazzled by the over-flow of light in daylight." Influence of the White Locus on the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila Males - PMC
Looks like Jonathon Wells was right in this case.
In creationist speak all mutations are defects, regardless of their benefits in different ecologies. This term means nothing when so used.
Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect. If it worked "as well" then it would not be eliminated from wild populations.
Has it actually been tested in the wild or is this just a lie for the gullible readers? No, it is not "all you need to know" -- that is a lie.
"We further show that white mutant flies are not only optomotor blind but also dazzled by the over-flow of light in daylight." Influence of the White Locus on the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila Males - PMC
Or it means they are better suited for twilight conditions, a different ecology. That is how evolution utilizes new traits -- whether or not they can expand into different ecologies -- such as the black pocket mice.
No, it looks like Jonathon Wells was not telling the whole truth. He was telling you what you wanted to hear and nothing more.
Nor does this argument show that the mutation was not a different trait that evolved in the lab, that it was not due to a mutation in the lab population, and that it therefore did not add to the diversity within the lab population -- which is Faith's claim.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 46 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 6:16 AM CRR has not replied

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


Message 57 of 67 (811946)
06-13-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
06-13-2017 11:48 AM


Re: Fruit Flies and creationist lies
CRR writes:
It is almost inevitable that the white eye mutation has occurred in the wild and it has not persisted so we can conclude that it is a deleterious mutation.
It's premature to conclude that white-eyed fruit flies don't exit in the wild BECAUSE of the mutation. Have you considered any other possible explanations?
What I have trouble with is assuming that because this mutation occurred in the lab that it would also occur in the wild -- the probability of two such mutations occurring is really very very small. Saying they don't exist in the wild is like saying they don't have blue or gold eyed flies in the wild, so those would be deleterious in the wild. It's lying by omission.
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 55 by ringo, posted 06-13-2017 11:48 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 7:20 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 60 of 67 (812917)
06-21-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by CRR
06-21-2017 7:20 AM


Re: Fruit Flies and creationist lies
It's quite likely that if it happened in a short time in a small laboratory population then it will also have happened in a much longer time in a much larger wild population.
Why?
What's the probability of a specified mutation occurring? (and isn't that a favorite IDologist argument?)
However the effects of this mutation have also been documented showing clearly that it is detrimental and not beneficial.
In one ecology. Has it been tested in all ecologies? When a black fur mutation occurs in a tan mouse population wouldn't that be clearly detrimental and not beneficial in the tan mouse ecology, but does that also mean it is clearly detrimental and not beneficial in a black lava bed ecology? It is the ecology that determines fitness, not the mutations.
Methinks you are assuming what you want to be without sufficient data\evidence.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 58 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 7:20 AM CRR has not replied

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


(1)
Message 61 of 67 (812923)
06-21-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by CRR
06-21-2017 7:34 AM


microevolution is evolution
... But since that acts to preserve the current allele frequencies it does not result even in microevolution!
If it causes a change in the frequency of alleles then microevolution occurs. Selection for stasis is still evolution.
But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor ...
Wrong, and this is the kind of error one makes when one starts with a wrong definition for the ToE.
Note that I am referring to your definition for the ToE in Message 7:
quote:
The Theory of Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.
All the ToE (scientific version) says is that mutations occur and cause variation in the inheritable traits, and selection operates on those variations by allowing the individuals with traits that are a better fit for the ecological challenges and opportunities to survive and reproduce. When that ecology is static and the population has reached an equilibrium fitness, selection will work to maintain a stasis in the population.
... the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available. Deleterious changes do not support that at all.
Actually all the evidence needs to show is that inheritable traits change over time, that anagenesis and cladogenesis do actually occur ... and it does.
Darwin had sufficient evidence to propose this as a hypothesis but the evidence since then is predominantly against it.
And I have no idea where you are getting this false information/idea. All scientific studies of evolution confirm evolution occurring, you can see it in every generation of every species currently living.
Again, you appear to be working with your problematic (misleading) definition of the ToE that "ascent" must occur, evolution must climb a ladder, when this is not what the ToE (scientific version) says.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 59 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 7:34 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by CRR, posted 06-23-2017 6:06 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 64 of 67 (813104)
06-23-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by CRR
06-23-2017 6:06 AM


Re: ToE (scientific version)
All the ToE (scientific version) says ...
Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version).
There is no single "official" definition, but I can show you how it is taught at one of the major universities that teaches biology and evolution:
quote:
University of Michigan description, part 1 - Evolution and Natural Selection
Darwin's Theory
Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. The first three ideas were already under discussion among earlier and contemporaneous naturalists working on the species problem as Darwin began his research. Darwin’s original contributions were the mechanism of natural selection and copious amounts of evidence for evolutionary change from many sources. He also provided thoughtful explanations of the consequences of evolution for our understanding of the history of life and modern biological diversity.
  • Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space. The representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior. These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.
  • All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago. Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.
  • Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin’s view. This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin’s time. Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages.
The primary mechanism of change over time is natural selection, elaborated below. This mechanism causes changes in the properties (traits) of organisms within lineages from generation to generation.
The Process of Natural Selection
Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.
  1. Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring. On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individualsfor example, number of eyes in vertebrates.
  2. Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.
  3. High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.
  4. Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.
From one generation to the next, the struggle for resources (what Darwin called the struggle for existence) will favor individuals with some variations over others and thereby change the frequency of traits within the population. This process is natural selection. The traits that confer an advantage to those individuals who leave more offspring are called adaptations.
In order for natural selection to operate on a trait, the trait must possess heritable variation and must confer an advantage in the competition for resources. If one of these requirements does not occur, then the trait does not experience natural selection. (We now know that such traits may change by other evolutionary mechanisms that have been discovered since Darwin’s time.)
Natural selection operates by comparative advantage, not an absolute standard of design. as natural selection acts by competition for resources, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859).
During the twentieth century, genetics was integrated with Darwin’s mechanism, allowing us to evaluate natural selection as the differential survival and reproduction of genotypes, corresponding to particular phenotypes. Natural selection can only work on existing variation within a population. Such variations arise by mutation, a change in some part of the genetic code for a trait. Mutations arise by chance and without foresight for the potential advantage or disadvantage of the mutation. In other words, variations do not arise because they are needed.
quote:
University of Michigan description, part 2 - The Process of Speciation
Evolution and Its Many Forms
Today we continue a three-lecture sequence on biological, or organic, evolution. Evolution is a unifying theme of this course, and the concept of evolution is relevant to many of our topics.
The word "evolution" does not apply exclusively to biological evolution. The universe and our solar system have developed out of the explosion of matter that began our known universe. Chemical elements have evolved from simpler matter. Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms. Languages, religions, and political systems all evolve. Hence, evolution is an appropriate theme for a course on global change.
The core aspects of evolution are "change" and the role of history, in that past events have an influence over what changes occur subsequently. In biological evolution this might mean that complex organisms arise out of simpler ancestors - though be aware that this is an over-simplification not acceptable to a more advanced discussion of evolution.
A full discussion of evolution requires a detailed explanation of genetics, because science has given us a good understanding of the genetic basis of evolution. It also requires an investigation of the differences that characterize species, genera, indeed the entire tree of life, because these are the phenomena that the theory of evolution seeks to explain.
We will begin with observed patterns of similarities and differences among species, because this is what Darwin knew about. The genetic basis for evolution only began to be integrated into evolutionary theory in the 1930's and 1940's. We will add genetics into our understanding of evolution through a discussion activity.
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
The link to the third lecture no longer works (it repeats the second lecture above).
Definition 1 is what results from process of evolution in a breeding population, while definition 2 is what results from the processes of anagenesis and cladogenesis, which are the long term, multigenerational, accumulation of the results of the process of evolution in a breeding population.
These are pretty standard definitions, and you can find similar definitions on other university websites.
quote:
An introduction to evolution
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
A genealogy illustrates change with inheritance over a small number of years. Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life.

As you can (or should be able to) see these two sources provide the same basic definition.
You can also compare these to my definition:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
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 63 by CRR, posted 06-23-2017 6:06 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 06-25-2017 6:37 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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