|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,811 Year: 4,068/9,624 Month: 939/974 Week: 266/286 Day: 27/46 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Besides, if macroevolution is impossible with one genome, how could it become possible with two of the same? If the changes needed for macroevolution could not happen, then how is it possible for huamans and chimps to survive with 40 million differences between their genomes? If mutations can't change genomes enough to produce macroevolution, then neither can a designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: The usual situation must be a condition of genetic reduction to depletion which in itself could be the cause of inability to interbreed, just by genetic mismatch, the furthest possible thing from anything deserving the term "speciation." Using your definition, there are no species on Earth since all populations gain genetic diversity with new mutations in each generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Sorry, my premises are ironclad and never disproved. Loss of genetic diversity is the necessary condition for evolution of new phenotypes. Your premise is disproven by the emergence of the new allele by random mutations prior to it replacing the old allele. This process repeats over and over, producing macroevolution.
This produces new phenotypes by losing the alleles for other traits. Mutations produce those phenotypes, not natural selection. Natural selection can only make those phenotypes more or less common within the population.
Since loss of genetic diversity is necessary to produce it, each new species has less genetic diversity than the last, and after a series of such population splits it's no wonder if ability to interbreed has been lost by simple genetic mismatch. Mutations increase genetic diversity. Your argument is disproven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: And I define the Kind as the boundary at which genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible. Then there are no kinds according to your definition since mutations increase genetic diversity in every generation. Take the cheetah as an example. A population bottleneck reduced their genetic diversity, but that diversity is increasing with every generation due to accumulation of new mutations. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: My argument is about what happens as necessary result of evolutionary processes, selection and isolation in particular. You are leaving out the process of mutation which is why your argument doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: No, I argue rightly that any additional genetic diversity must be reduced or lost to produce a new phenotype. Once that new phenotype is fixed in the population then mutations will occur in that fixed allele producing more genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: No, I'm not leaving them out, I've accounted for them. Where?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: No, it IS the selection that produces the new phenotypes. Selection can only select for phenotypes that already exist. Mutations are responsible for the creation of those phenotypes.
Most of it is built in and not produced by mutations but it doesn't matter. Last I checked, humans don't have the DNA needed to give birth to chimps. No genome has the ability to produce all known species by the processes you are describing. No mixture of human alleles will produce an elephant. In order to have both elephants and humans you need different DNA sequences, and that's what mutations produce.
You cannot get a new phenotype unless you lose the genetic material for other phenotypes. I already disproved that claim. In the pocket mouse there was a gain of a phenotype from mutation, not from a loss in genetic material. "Rock pocket mice are generally light-colored and live on light-colored rocks. However, populations of dark (melanic) mice are found on dark lava, and this concealing coloration provides protection from avian and mammalian predators. We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."Just a moment... This new phenotype was not produced by loss of alleles. This new phenotype arose through mutation within existing alleles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Breeding and ring species are excellent examples. Mutations occur in populations bred by humans, and they produce new phenotypes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: To get the black pocket mice does mean losing the alleles for the light colored ones and vice versa. Nope. All it takes is a mutation. The allele for light brown coat color is still the most common allele in the total pocket mouse population. The black allele didn't have to replace the light brown allele in order for there to be black mice.
If you're arguing for mutations that show up just in time to save the sinking ship you're talking Lamarck not Darwin. I am talking about random mutations which are the hallmark of Darwinian evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Mostly it's not mutations at all, you're assuming it's mutations when it's nothing but built in alleles in new combinations. That was already disproven as well when we showed you thousands of alleles for a single gene in a single species. Those alleles are the product of mutation. Mutations produce new alleles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
And I still say that scattering the effects of the immune system through the population, which is what mutations do, can't be a good thing. If you don't have any evidence to back this claim, then you don't have proven premises like you claimed. Unless you can show that mutations don't happen, you have no choice but to conclude that losses of alleles due to selection is reversed with the emergence of new alleles through mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: What? In order to get a whole population of black (or white) mice, which is the way the situation is always described, they certainly do have to replace the other colors. The black and brown mice freely interbreed. They are part of the same population. Both alleles exist in the population. One has not replaced the other. There are still black mice. Therefore, the black allele does not have to replace the brown allele in order for there to be black mice.
Somebody, Dr. A I think, said one of the colors is dominant, I forget which, but that means it's always going to show up among mice of the other color(s), which means, IIRC, it pretty much always has to be a mutation that shows up right on time for the switch because otherwise it will be picked off by predators. What do you mean by "it shows up right on time"? That makes no sense. The pocket mice were not facing extinction. There is a massive amount of brown desert that they were doing just fine in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Now we've got brown mice as well as black and white, and lots and lots of brown desert. That's a new version of the story. There have been brown and black mice from the very start. Don't know where you got the white mice from. The black mice are only found in limited areas that have black basalt rock outcroppings. In the vast majority of territory where pocket mice are found they are brown. The brown allele has not replaced the black allele, and the black allele has not replaced the brown allele. The black allele did not have to replace the brown allele in order for there to be black mice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: If there is no intense selection pressure then of course you're not going to lose the alleles for the other colors. That happens with intense selection pressure. But you said that the black allele had to completely replace the brown allele in order for that phenotype to exist. That isn't the case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024