|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The fact that it takes reduction of genetic diversity for evolution to occur at all, ... Not a fact, nor a theory nor a scientific hypothesis, but your personal opinion, falsified by polyploidy speciation:
quote: This is objective empirical evidence that genetic diversity is increased and the result is new species by evolution: mutation and selection and survival and reproduction. You lose, and this should be the end of this ridiculous claim. It won't though, because you will deny the evidence ...
The ToE has been proved wrong in so many ways it's astonishing to see how it just goes on limping along as if nothing had ever happened This too is false. But then you don't really know what the ToE says, because you have a perverted creationist version in your head. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Polyploidy sounds like anything but beneficial to an organism. ... And I predicted you would deny reality ... again. If it survives and breeds it is not detrimental. There are many cases of this happening. That is the only test necessary.
... The fact that it can't interbreed with nonpolyploids is sure evidence that it has nothing to do with speciation but only genetic dysfunction. ... If it survives and breeds it is not dysfunctional. It does. That is the only test necessary. Curiously the fact it can't interbreed with the parent population means it meets the Biological definition of speciation. You don't get to decide what is and what is not speciation, because that is the purview of actual educated scientists that know what they are talking about.
... It's absurd for anyone to think for half a second that it could be the solution to the inevitable loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. ... It's insane that you continue to deny reality and refuse to learn when you are wrong.
... Oh and it IS inevitable. I've probed it logically dozens of times, but it ought to be provable easily enough by observation and DNA testing of a series of daughter populations. Only in your bubble fantasy world Faith, heck you could probably "prove" that rocks don't exist ....
Message 807: Besides, if macroevolution is impossible with one genome, how could it become possible with two of the same? This is the logic you use to disprove the ToE: pure self-delusion. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Logical proofs are only true in the real world when the premises are true in the real world. And like math, logic can only model the real world not cause any changes to it. If that model is invalidated by reality it is not reality that has to change, it is the model. Polyploidy does cause speciation. That is an observed objective empirical fact. Polyploidy does cause an increase in DNA. Polyploidy organisms can carry more alleles than normal diploid organisms, and -- curiously -- this has been one of Faith's argument for original kinds, that they carried more alleles. Polyploidy also allows mutations of one set of the DNA to add new traits to the populations. Thus polyploidy logically causes an increase in information (however it is defined). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, ... Still wrong, still invalidated by polyploidy increasing genetic diversity. Still invalidated by actual evolution. Without mutations adding to the genetic diversity selection has nothing to select other than the old phenotypes. The scientific evolution - not Faitholution - includes mutation and selection in a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Those are four facts that make up the actual real world process of evolution -- it is observed, documented fact. Denial is delusion.
... It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species. The source of genetic diversity is mutations. This gives selection something new to work with to adapt a population to an ecology, something that didn't exist before. Polyploidy, for example, provides another copy of the genome to mutate and then the organisms have both the original version and the new version. Thus they have more genetic diversity ON THEIR OWN than their parents. Denial is delusion.
... you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species. Where do the alleles for larger size come from in Pelycodus Faith? Selection is removing the alleles for the smaller organisms, but where do the larger organisms get the alleles for increased size?
quote: How has all of Pelycodus jarrovii become larger than all of Pelycodus ralstoni except by the addition of alleles for larger and larger organisms, while selection removes the old alleles for smaller organisms. Selection removes alleles when there is a choice, and choice is provided by mutations. Evolution and anagenesis explains this very simply, with no torturous mental fantasy. Denial is delusion. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. ... Except when it is cause for a population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one fur color remains in its current ecology and the new fur color moves into a new ecology and starts evolving independently of the original fur color population. Except when simple size difference causes one population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one size inhabits outer tree branches while the other inhabits a more ground based ecology, foraging and reproducing in those different habitats.
... And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, ... Totally and utterly falsified by polyploidy, failure to understand this is not a refutation of the facts. Denial is delusion.
... can't happen any other way. ... Except when it so obviously does. Denial is delusion.
... Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes. Except when there are prior mutations that provide alternatives and it is this gain in genetic diversity that provides the ability for drift into develop a new phenotype.
Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, ... Except when mutations provide the traits for the new varieties, as in the black mice. Denial is delusion.
... but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. ... You mean the division of the population into two independently evolving daughter populations, as in polyploidy species and fossil species like pelycodus, where the opportunity provided by mutation allowed the original population to inhabit a second ecology.
... What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. ... That didn't exist in the previous population, so it must be a mutated allele/s that are selected.
... And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost. Because they have been replaced/displaced by the new larger allele that were just gained by mutation. Net change in genetic material hovers around zero in a never ending equilibrium between new and old as new becomes old. Enjoy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. ... All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race or species, evolution within the Clade, which is the definition of (scientific) macroevolution.
... You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution. Anagenesis(1) and cladogenesis(1). Can you tell me what your definition is for macroevolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems ... Which seems to be your way of "proving" your opinions, semantics and twisted definitions to fit your opinions ...
... Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind ... abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population ... So you have: Macroevolution is any new population beyond the boundary of their Kind, yes? What is "the Kind" and what is the "boundary of the Kind" and how do we identify and find them? If a new population is descendant from an existing "kind" species, isn't it -- by definition -- a part of that "kind" (and thus cannot be outside the "boundary of the Kind")? Without knowing this your definition is useless and as arbitrary as your opinion. Let us talk about dogs for starters, Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species.
Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection of new mutations, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species, because the mutations occur randomly and the only difference is the selection and viability of the populations (artificial selection does not test for survivability in a natural environment because the breeds are kept in protected environments -- this artificially increases the different types that would survive). Some are much more viable than others, especially when the breed is used for specific purposes (eg - sheep herding, fox hunting, etc). So how big is the "Dog Kind"? We have dogs (all breeds) and wolves (all species) and presumably all other members of Canidae:
quote: How do we know if these are "Dog Kind" members? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Caniformia:
quote: Caniformia also includes bears and badgers -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivora:
quote: Carnivora also includes cats and other members of Feliforma (jackals, mongoose, etc) -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivoramorpha:
quote: Carnivoramorpha also includes the (extinct) Miacoidea -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? Before we can say that something has evolved outside the "boundary of the Kind" don't we have to know what that boundary is and how we can test species against that boundary? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My definition of the Kind is functional, defined by the point at which evolution runs out of genetic diversity. ... I've argued my functional definition for years now. To no avail because it is meaningless. Evolution has been running for over 3.5 billion years with mutations supplying the fuel for new traits, new varieties, new species, etc. and while some species have gone extinct the cause is as likely to be mass loss of integrated ecological habitat (extinction events). Life not only survives extinction events it explodes into new species as populations invade habitats that are empty and opportunity is wide open (the foraminifera show this explosion of new species and forms after the K—Pg (formerly K-T) extinction\meteor impact). As the niches become filled to species carrying capacity (ecological constraints) this rate of diversification slows down to what we see today (although we are coming up on a new extinction event caused by human carelessness\ignorance and it will be interesting to see Creationists struggle with new species ....). The upshot Faith is that LIFE is not concerned with human survival or opinions, it will recover and flourish regardless .. unless we end up cauterizing every square inch of existing habitat ... including deep underground. So let's get back to your presumed definition of macroevolution:
Macroevolution is any {new population} beyond the boundary of the Kind ... Would this be a new (breeding?) population of organisms that is unrelated to any existing population? or Would this be a new (breeding?) population of organisms with entirely new DNA/genome/alleles that are not found in any existing population? or what??? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Oh you know I've given the evidence many times. ... Repeating assertions ad nauseaum is not giving evidence -- actual evidence would be objective empirical evidence, not opinions based on fantasy, which has been notably missing from your posts.
... The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics. ... What you have is an extreme artificial bottleneck population where each breed is artificially kept from (a) mingling with other dogs (and sharing genetic material) and (b) gaining any new traits by mutations (they are selected out) to maintain an artificial stasis. There is no way that breeds represent a real world evolution situation. But I also note that this is the way you claim new species arise ... are these breeds new species then (they are reproductively isolated and they have traits different from general dog (mongrel) populations? Or are they "outside" the "Dog Kind" ? -- you ever going to tell us what that means?
... The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed ... Which is the goal of the artificial selection to maintain the breeds, not a natural occurrence, as any deviation is eliminated by the artificial selection of the breeders.
... -- or wild population. ... Where such strong single-minded selection is extremely rare if it exists at all.
... This evidence is inferential ... What you are talking about is logic, not evidence. Logic, like math, can only model reality, it cannot alter or control it in any way. Any error in your premises (as noted above) and your conclusions are invalid. When the model fails to represent reality it is the model that is invalid, not reality, not FACT. You don't know what real evidence is. Real evidence is FACT, such as plants that you can pick up, dissect and evaluate the actual factual DNA structures.
... You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't. Except when you can, as demonstrated by real objective empirical evidence, such as polyploidy species. So your conclusion is wrong, and that means your model is wrong, that you are wrong. Again. Denial of the facts of reality is delusion. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Before mutations: 100% brown allele After mutations: 10% black fur, 90% brown fur You are saying that after the mutations there is less genetic diversity? And ... black is dominant ... so, the Hardy-Weinberg equation gives us:
p^2 + 2pq + q^2 where p is one allele and q the other allele, so pq is heterozygous and the others are homozygous, The equation with {br} = 0.9 (making {BL} = .01) is
(0.9)^2 + 2(0.9)(0.1) + (0.1)^2 = 0.81 + 0.18 + 0.01 and 81% are tan (homozygous) while 19% are black (1% homozygous and 18% heterozygous) and ~1 in 5 mice can utilize the lava bed habitat, and of those ~1 in 4 offspring will be tan and need to escape back to the tan soil habitat. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So 90% of statistics used in arguments are made up on the spot?
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Guess I gots some readin to do.
Thanksby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So I see auditing a population genetics course in my future ... I've been thinking of doing this too, especially as Brown University is a bicycle ride away and I could catch a lecture by Kenneth R. Miller. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 67
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... It does however miss neutral theory so I would prefer Curiously I don't see it being excluded ...
quote: Surviving a stochastic catastrophe does not depend on fitness so much as luck, and I see that falling under challenge to the breeding population, and an opportunity for the survivors for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. It also changes the frequency of hereditary trait distribution.
quote: Examples would be hair and eye color variations, when not subject to sexual selection or survival fitness, as they could propagate randomly in the breeding population ... ie they are selection neutral. What I see neutral genetic mutations and selection neutral phenotype traits contributing, is a reserve of increased diversity within the population so that it has a ready arsenal should selection suddenly become an issue, and it also provides a "scaffold/structure" for further mutation, trait alteration, that could be beneficial but that couldn't occur on its own. An example is the e.coli citrate experiment, where the first mutation is neutral, but without it the second one doesn't happen. A neutral mutation or trait is neutral until it becomes incorporated into a useful or deleterious mutation\trait, and that can depend on ecological and climate changes.
[Biological] evolution is heritable change in a population over time. While very simple and direct, I find this --and the standard "change in the frequency of alleles" definition -- fail to incorporate the contribution and effect of the ecological habitat, it's at too molecular level for me. Take an organism and clone it and put them in different habitats and they will evolve differently because the ecological effect will be different. This is how you get branching lineages of descent. So you could say that my definition is more of an ecological definition of (the word) evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024