|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the history of life require "macroevolution"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The complexisties you describe don't suggest any kind of change that would promote evolution beyond the Kind Evolution doesn't go beyond the Kind. It modifies the kind, never goes beyond it. Hence why we are still mammals, still tetrapods. It's just we are modified mammal kinds.
it's all still changes to genes Which is fine.
and even if those functions change they are still genes for those functions Evolution doesn't change the laws of physics. The functions change, that's evolution. The fact that genotypes influence phenotypes isn't the thing that changes. So this is not a valid objection.
they aren't going to produce something outside the range of what genes do Nobody is proposing that genes do things that genes can't do.
which would be necessary for evolution beyond the Kind. Therefore evolutionary biologists are not proposing evolution beyond the Kind.
Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss. There doesn't have to be loss to get the new phenotypes necessarily. The loss is only in the process of increasing the frequency of certain phenotypes relative to others.
There HAS to be a point in a series of such evolutionary processes where genetic diversity is reduced to the point that further evolution cannot happen, a hypothetical point in most cases but sometimes real. There doesn't have to be such a point.
As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss. And yet, even though purebreeding is an exercise at creating new animals that minimally diverge from the 'exemplar' - that is it is a deliberate attempt to reduce diversity - change still happens: 100 Years of Breed “Improvement” | Science and Dogs
Just a 100 years or so.
IF YOU GET MUTATIONS AT THAT POINT you start losing the species, Also known as 'evolution'.
you go back to genetic diversity, you get a motley collection of new phenotypes, not an identifiable species Except selection is also continuing to happen, which may take a motley collection and push it in a different direction from the original phenotype. That is to say: evolution. A hedge trimmed into a primitive mammalian predator is allowed to grow out, and is then trimmed into a wolf, it grows out, and is trimmed into a domestic dog. The loss of leaves and twigs is intrinsic to the process, but so is the growth of new leaves and twigs.
And again, mutations don't change the basic function of a gene even if that gene involves more than one function. If it loses the original function, while retaining the secondary function - the function of the gene has changed.
For instance, dogs have stiff bodies, cats have flexible bodies. What parts of the genome affect those structural differences? HOX genes are significant players. There are also a multitude of genes that regulate their expression amongst likely many others that are involved. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: YOu can't even show a species that developed from mutations beyond a single trait. Chimps and humans are separated by 40 million mutations. They differ by more than one trait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss. The process of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss is exactly what drives macroevolution. This is why the chimp genome is different from the human genome. Mutations that occurred in the chimp or human lineage replaced the pre-existing alleles to arrive at two genomes that are now different from one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Typical definitional word game. Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations," they differ by that many TRAITS, even that many genes perhaps. The "mutations" as usual are nothing but assumptions based on faith in the ToE. Such traits are no doubt part of the basic built-in created differences between chimps and humans.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Gain then loss" cannot work, you aren't thinking. If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them. The traits of the new species are a very small selected number. So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed. Since the traits can only be variations on the basic genome of the Kind the variations could only be within the Kind -- and they always are. You get reduced genetic diversity no matter what, and you cannot get macroevolution from reduced genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations," "Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature That is from the chimp genome paper. I think I will go with the scientists who actually sequenced the chimp genome over a lay person on an internet forum that has demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in the field of genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them. Why would I have to lose all the new mutations in order to get a new species? Why would a new species have a genome identical to it's ancestors?
So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed.
New traits continue to appear due to mutations. You get a continual pattern of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss. This is what changes the daughter populations compared to the ancestral populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course it can - and if you really thought about it you'd see that.
quote: And here we have proof that you aren't thinking. There is no need to lose most if them. If, for instance a dozen genes got a new allele then keeping all of them - in place of older variations would be the most effective way to move towards a new species.
quote: You assume that, but if there is any such effect then so far it has been overwhelmed by other factors. Like, for instance, the fact that the number of genes is not fixed, and genes can get added.
quote: Since all life on Earth is the same Kind - to the extent that "Kinds" can be said to exist then that is trivially true, but completely useless to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it doesn't need to happen. There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It certainly can happen, the evidence says that it has happened and reality doesn't care whether it "needs" to happen.
quote: That's your assumption, and the evidence disagrees with you.
quote: And another assumption contradicted by the evidence
quote: Obviously wrong. Replace enough alleles with new ones and you'll get something that would be considered a different species from the original population, without any net loss of diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind. The mutations would be an increase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mutations make no difference.
Domestic breeding is evidence that reduced genetic diversity is necessary. And it would be simple to confirm this with wild creatures too in the simple lab experiment I've so often suggested, of creating a series of daughter populations and checking the DNA for rate of homozygosity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Obviously untrue.
quote: The fact that domestic breeders can and do use mutations they consider desirable proves that mutations do add genetic diversity - which evolution can use. They also prove that existing species can have considerable genetic diversity while still being recognisable as a species.
quote: How would this experiment allow for the relatively slow pace of evolution ? A typical speciation event is expected to take hundreds of years, while the time between speciation events should be hundreds of thousands of years. Unless you are somehow going to find a way to dramatically speed up all the processes involved by the same factor and can show that the acceleration won't significantly affect the outcome your experiment is utterly impractical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.
Evolution doesn't need to produce new information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taq writes:
Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information. Evolution doesn't need to produce new information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor. So the "created kind" evolves by losing genetic diversity ... ... then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind? inquiring minds want to know. 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