|
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 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through, Exactly, and a major point of my example of RIL populations. The effects that you are expecting in daughter populations cannot happen any faster than they can in a population derived from a single parental line, isolated individually and self fertilized for several generations. It HAS to take more time to blend together the gene frequencies in a larger population than in a smaller population. More combinations are going to occur and it's going to take time for all the igenetic lines to mate with each other. And I'm sorry but plants with their self-fertilization simply will not do in this discusszion. Animals don't self-fertilize.
That breeding strategy operates at the MAXIMUM potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization. Just another bit of mystification. Maybe your professors would give you high marks but you need a new approach if you are trying to answer my argument.
If a system that operates at maximum potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization cannot produce new species in 10 generations (98+% homogeneous populations), how could a wild population do it... that is if isolation and changing allele frequencies are enough? I have no idea what you are talking about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Another example of a reproductive barrier would be the timing of mating season. Let's say we have two populations of foxes. One in the north and one in the south. Litters in the south are born in late February to early March, but in the north conditions in late February may not be suitable for giving birth. The population in the north adapts to the conditions by mating later so that litters are born late March to early April. If these populations then come together for some reason, they may not be able to interbreed because their reproductive cycles are not syncronized.
How many mutations would that take to shift the mating season to 3 or 4 weeks later? What allele frequencies would each population need to have in order to have different mating seasons? Why would you think allele frequency is a good explanation for that type of adaptation? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HBD, I'm aware that there are many complications and details that eventually have to be taken into account in my argument, but at this point in the discussion when I don't have any sense that you've even grasped what my argument is despite the fact that like everybody else you keep saying you do, this is a side issue and a distraction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
And this collection of pedantic irrelevancy contributes what to the discussion? And so begins the insults... I assume that means you have no answer to my critique other than you can't understand it, it seems irrelevant and I am being pedantic. Got it. I'll stop now. Anyone else have a relevent response? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
A link for DOCJ:
Message 3Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Not related. Different kinds. There is not any evidence suggesting the 2 species are related. Having similarities is a weak point to argue evolution.
I'm not neutral but I can see different perspectives. I have not always been a beleiver. I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college and started realizing the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation. Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I get to the point that your answers to me are so frustratingly opaque and apparently irrelevant while being presented with such total confidence I feel like punching you. You don't understand what I'm saying or you could address it in a way I could follow. Yes do please stop and please don't bring a plant example to this discussion again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Look, I get it that you don't understand basic population genetics concepts. However, I have no doubt that you could if you were only willing to give up your misconceptions about how population genetics work and actually learn about the concepts. But alas, you are only willing to dip your toes in and not go any deeper than that. The problem is that by dipping your toes in, you think you know what the whole ocean is like.
Yes do please stop and please don't bring a plant example to this discussion again. I bring what I want to the discussion. I already explained that this same thing works for animals such as laboratory mice and rats and is routinely used for that. Also some plants are not self-fertile and so are done using the sibling-cross method. Same thing... Your objection regarding plants is unfounded dismissal.
while being presented with such total confidence I study population genetics, not as my main subject, but as a specialty within my main subject. Why shouldn't I be confident?
I feel like punching you. You're a Trump supporter aren't you? Good Day HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually I've been watching presentations of population genetics at You Tube. So far I object to their insistence on mutations as the source of variability. Of course. Otherwise nothing has been a problem so far, just not related to what I'm arguing.
If your example applies to mice then use mice. And use them in a way that relates to my argument. Otherwise go home. Just6 your title about refuting my "idea of speciation" shows you don't have a clue what I'm arguing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college Odd... nothing you have said thus far has given me any indication that you have training in the biological sciences.
the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation. Granted. I also accept creation. I believe that the God of the Universe created all that is and all that will be. I also accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have on earth. Not incompatible. Only incompatible with certain interpretations of the Bible. Science and creation and not incompatible with one another. If, for example, we share a common ancestor with chimps... so what? It doesn't make me any less human nor does it change the relationship between God and myself. If you insist on a particular interpretation of that relationship, then yes, it could be incompatible. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I want a term to make it clear I'm talking only about breeding within the new population. Unless the new population is a family group, "inbreeding" would not be the correct term to use for "breeding within the new population." "Inbreeding" is about mating between closely related individuals.
Mutations I suppose? But as I've already said, why should mutations be genetically incompatible? They may or may not be... it depends on the mutation. Besides, one single mutation is unlikely to cause genetic incompatibility. It is the accumulation of mutations that would lead to incompatibility. Well DUH. But the only kind of mutations that should be a problem are the deleterious ones. The mutations that accumulate over time to form a new species are unlikely to be deleterious, because that would make the population less fit.
And this collection of pedantic irrelevancy contributes what to the discussion? It's not pedantic or irrelevant. HereBeDragons was responding to your assumption that genetic incompatibility is necessary to produce a new species. He used the example of the ring species Greenish Warblers. Though individuals at opposite ends of the ring may not be genetically incompatible, they may not recognize each other as mates and so are reproductively isolated. Speciation is not solely dependent upon the failure of gametes to fuse. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
If your example applies to mice then use mice. Everywhere I used the word "plant" substitute the word "mouse." And everywhere I mention "selfing" substitute the word "sibling cross."
shows you don't have a clue what I'm arguing. No one does Faith, it's stuff that is made up in your own head. Maybe if you could provide a mathematical model or diagram the process so we could see where we are going wrong as far as understanding what you are saying. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : grammarWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through,
Exactly, and a major point of my example of RIL populations. The effects that you are expecting in daughter populations cannot happen any faster than they can in a population derived from a single parental line, isolated individually and self fertilized for several generations. It HAS to take more time to blend together the gene frequencies in a larger population than in a smaller population. HBD was agreeing with you - that's why he began his paragraph with the word "Exactly." But he went on to explain again the great utility of his RIL example, that it achieves your goal of diminished genetic variation far faster than your daughter population example. And the end result? No speciation.
And I'm sorry but plants with their self-fertilization simply will not do in this discussion. Animals don't self-fertilize. Some animals self-fertilize, some change sex, some do both.
That breeding strategy operates at the MAXIMUM potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization. Just another bit of mystification. Maybe your professors would give you high marks but you need a new approach if you are trying to answer my argument. HBD is just emphasizing in different terms what he just said. The "fixation of alleles" part is about reduced genetic variation, and "homogenization" you already understand because you've been using that term yourself.
If a system that operates at maximum potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization cannot produce new species in 10 generations (98+% homogeneous populations), how could a wild population do it... that is if isolation and changing allele frequencies are enough? I have no idea what you are talking about. HBD is explaining why your claim that reduced genetic diversity causes speciation is wrong. The RIL example produces reduced genetic diversity and homogeneity much faster than any breeder (and much, much faster than the wild) could achieve, yet still fails to produce new species. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mutations occur in individuals.
They can only show up here and there in individuals in a population. They will be completely different from each other. If you got a new phenotype in each individual in a population, so that you have a scattering of different traits through the entire population, that's not a new species, right? What has to happen is selection to spread the mutation or mutations. Selection is what forms new populations, not mutations. Selection eliminates alleles in order to bring out the new phenotypes. It doesn't matter whether you are getting a new variety or new species, all I'm talking about is getting a new population that looks different from the parent population and that means losing the characteristics that were in the parent population to get the new ones in the daughter population. I don't know what you think brings about speciation that's different from this process but since a new species is also a new population that has different characteristcs from the parent population it still can only be formed by replacing those former characteristcs with the new ones, which is a loss of genetic diversity. For it to remain stable at all would also require that there be no gene flow and no new mutations. That's how a domestic breed is maintained and it has to be how a species is maintained as well. Soon as you get new gene flow, new mutations, drift, a new migration you are losing the homogeneity of your population. Which is fine except that it's not evolution. Evolution requires selection and selection reduces genetic diversity. ABE I watched the sunlight go dim out my window. It's bright again. I guess the eclipse is over. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024