|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, my mistake, the program isn't a model of evolution.
What it is a model of doesn't interest me, though, so I guess that's the end of that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: (And by the way the bottleneck at Noah's Ark didn't bring about the same degree of genetic depletion we see today from bottlenecks because there would have been much more genetic diversity (heterozygosity) in all the animals on the ark. A population reduction to 2 or 14 is a far, far more severe bottleneck than anything seen with species like the cheetah. All the species on the ark, even if every gene was heterozygos (a completely unsupported assertion), would have possessed much less genetic diversity than any species alive today that isn't on the edge of extinction.
I also think they would have had much less junk DNA in their genomes, so they would have had many more functioning genes than any animal has today, Another completely unsupported assertion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Stile writes: Now, 2000 years goes by and, due to random mutations we have a dog population like this: I've been following skeptically along because mutations have played a very minor role in the history of breeding, even if you extend the breeding period to 2000 years. And if you're waiting for a specific mutation, then that seems very unlikely. I think all animal breeding programs depend upon manipulation of existing variation, rather than waiting for mutations. Poking around on the web I did notice the some plant breeding programs use chemicals and radiation to induce mutations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
CRR writes: Do you have any science to back up this assertion?
Yes.In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations" looks at the likelihood of gain-of-function and loss-of-function mutations occurring in a given population and finds loss-of-function mutations to be more probable in general, both in theory and in practice. Here is the original exchange, where Taq is asking that you back up your assertion that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information":
Taq writes: CRR writes: That is so, and very few of the beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information. Do you have any science to back up this assertion? I agree with your claim that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information", but how does your response about the probability of a beneficial mutation support that contention, or even have anything to do with it? If I could attempt to answer the question myself, I think any mutation that results in an allele not previously in the population must be considered to have increased genetic information. The number of alleles across the population has increased from n to n+1. How could that not be an increase in information? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: Remember, it has to occur in a germ cell to be passed on. Well, duh! That's a given. What good would it do to talk about mutations in a kidney cell or a liver cell? Those mutations would have no chance of propagating throughout the population. So just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation. So when you say:
Faith in Message 310 writes: That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently... Apparently untrue. Plus beneficial mutations are more likely than previously thought. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
DOCJ writes: 2 Science changes like the wind. What does this even mean? Can you give us a couple examples of "science changing like the wind?"
DOCJ writes: I'm not arguing that it is unhealthy to change your mind persay, quite the opposite. I'm arguing 1 it can be unhealthy So, which are you arguing?
DOCJ writes: Which does lead to a type of knowledge and this knowledge can and will be debated, corrected, and etc. "Which does lead to a type of knowledge", what does this even mean? Science is a standardized method of discovering things about the Universe that is intentionally designed to correct errors in conclusions by refining experiments and observations.
DOCJ writes: Millions use it supporting creation such as the reasons to believe entity. What? Is English not your native language?
DOCJ writes: And others use it to suggest evolution such as hawking. Evolution is a conclusion based on evidence and observation. What does "evolution such as hawking" even mean?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: I've been following skeptically along because mutations have played a very minor role in the history of breeding, even if you extend the breeding period to 2000 years. I'm not intending to use "breeding" as part of this example. I'm only intending to use "dogs" and things like "hair length, strength-of-smell" because they are easily understood traits.I'm attempting to put a more practical-side (and perhaps easier-to-understand) spin on the conversation. However, I am an amateur and am not familiar with how long things tend to actually take. If we did have a dog species that was "all the same"... how long do you (approximately) think it would take to produce differences in the population like long hair/short hair and strong smellers/weak smellers for 5 different traits? I just guessed at 2000 years (also, trying to keep the number low because I know Faith gets uncomfortable with higher numbers).Do you think such a thing would more reasonably be looking at something like 200,000 years? 2 million?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Faith writes: Depends on how large the founding population of your new species was. Most of the scattered mutations would stay behind in the parent population if the founding population was fairly small. Exactly.It depends on if the population is large enough to recover from the population bottleneck or not. The cheetah seems to be having issues recovering. The bear does not. We will see what happens to our dog population...
Faith writes: I don't find it impossible, just another case of increasing diversity to no evolutionary purpose as it were. In this case your mutations destroyed what was a homogeneous dog breed, sharing all the same traits, this destruction being what I keep saying has to happen if you introduce mutations into an established breed: you go from a breed to a mutt. You've reversed the effect of selection which had homogenized the breed. It's selection that does that, it's selection that turns a motley collection of traits into a recognizable breed. Yes, I completely agree with the idea of going into a "mutt." What I described with all the differences (hair length, smell strength...) becoming apparent after 2000 years is very validly described as turning the "once-all-the-same" dog population into more of a mutt population. However, the size of the overall dog, the colour of it's hair, the shape of it's skull, the intelligence-range... any and all things not mentioned are assumed to still be the same. Therefore, the "mutts" would all be recognizable as the same sort of dog... just some have long hair, others short. Some smell better, others weaker... But yes, the variation that has gone through the population creates more of a "mutt" as opposed to a very-specific "breed" definition. This does, however, still increase the genetic variety of "the population" of that dog. Now, onto some more agreement with you:
So, after 2000 years, we have this: Hair - some short, some longEye colour - some dark, some light Nail length - some short, some long Ability to smell - same (all strong) Length of legs - some short, some long After 200 years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this: Hair - some short, some longEye colour - same (all dark) Nail length - some short, some long Ability to smell - same (all strong) Length of legs - some short, some long We have "lost" the light coloured eyes.
After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this: Hair - some short, some longEye colour - same (all dark) Nail length - some short, some long Ability to smell - same (all strong) Length of legs - same (all long) Here we have lost the short legs, and with the speciation events so close together, there isn't much time for the population to recover. Our dog population is becoming smaller and smaller and having to turn to more and more inbreeding.Just like the cheetah, reproduction for the dogs is becoming harder and harder. After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this: Hair - some short, some longEye colour - same (all dark) Nail length - same (all short) Ability to smell - same (all strong) Length of legs - same (all long) More trouble for the population...
After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this: Hair - same (all short)Eye colour - same (all dark) Nail length - same (all short) Ability to smell - same (all strong) Length of legs - same (all long) And now we have a dog population with extremely little genetic variation (much like the cheetah). We have lost genetic variation over each speciation event, the population has gotten smaller and smaller.With a much smaller population, much more inbreeding occurs. With more inbreeding, reproduction gets more difficult (more likely for babies to die). Because the population is so small, and the speciation events happened to0 quickly... random mutations didn't have a chance to create any additional genetic variation. This dog population is in danger of becoming extinct. Like the cheetah. Is that an accurate representation of the ideas you've been trying to convey about how evolution *must* lead to a decrease in genetic variety? I hope so, because that is what I was aiming for. If not, please let me know what you disagree with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: Yes.In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations" looks at the likelihood of gain-of-function and loss-of-function mutations occurring in a given population and finds loss-of-function mutations to be more probable in general, both in theory and in practice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list... That indicates that gains of function do occur through random mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: "Now when the isolated populations merge ..."Maybe they won't interbreed, maybe they can't, but probably they can and will. They didn't in the example we are using. Humans and chimps don't interbreed.
You can tell your story, I'll tell mine. What you apparently won't do is address the example I have given where there is no interbreeding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
DOCJ writes: Ok. In DNA there is plenty of room for information to be stored, no need to think it was lost. When DNA accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift then there is reason to think that it has lost function. About 90% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
And most of the time mutations lead to death, or the mutation is destroyed within the creature causing abortion. If that were so then there wouldn't be any humans. Each human is born with 50-100 mutations. If you are correct, then every conception would end in a spontaneous abortion.
This idea that mutations lead to new species and then to new kinds so to speak, over billions of years is hypothetical with exception to simple life forms such as plants. If the DNA sequence differences between species are not responsible for the physical differences between species, then please tell us what is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
DOCJ writes: Books actually do change reality though. If I write a book that says the Sun orbits the Earth, the Sun will not start orbiting the Earth.
I'm arguing 1 it can be unhealthy and 2 Science changes like the wind. That should help you draw a better conclusion (i.e to change your mind) about the process of Science and the related flaws. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years now. Still going strong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
(And by the way the bottleneck at Noah's Ark didn't bring about the same degree of genetic depletion we see today from bottlenecks because there would have been much more genetic diversity (heterozygosity) in all the animals on the ark. A population reduction to 2 or 14 is a far, far more severe bottleneck than anything seen with species like the cheetah. All the species on the ark, even if every gene was heterozygos (a completely unsupported assertion), would have possessed much less genetic diversity than any species alive today that isn't on the edge of extinction. Not if they were, as you yourself suggest, all heterozygous at all loci, and even I don't go that far. I'd guess some large percentage of heterozygosity, at least 50% or so (based on my understanding that the average genome today has about 7% heterozygosity). If it's also true that there was very little junk DNA in their genomes, it all being functional genetic material, then there would have been a lot more genetic diversity available than just the heterozygosity.
All the species on the ark, even if every gene was heterozygos (a completely unsupported assertion), would have possessed much less genetic diversity than any species alive today that isn't on the edge of extinction. No, because high heterozygosity IS high genetic diversity, so they had to have possessed much more than today's species. And again I suppose far more functioning genes as well, which have since become junk DNA, due largely to deleterious mutations. Of course it's hypothetical, just as all the ToE's stuff is too. If what I suppose IS true it does account quite well for what we see today. There has to be much less genetic diversity in all species today than there would have been on the ark though it must vary a great deal from species to species. There would be less for the reason I'm arguing here: the selection processes that bring about new varieties and species lose some genetic diversity with every new daughter population. Founder Effect is one way it happens all at once, but otherwise it's the same process that goes on in all populations built from a selected number of founding individuals whether randomly by migration or drift, or by natural selection. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
Isn't correcting yourself better than staying wrong, like religion does?
It can be a bad thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I feel it necessary to point out that the mutation has to occur in a germ cell because the usual reference to the constantly occurring mutations in every generation don't distinguish between those very very rare occurrences and the huge number of somatic mutations that don't get passed on. Sorry if you had it in mind but you didn't say it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024