|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Hardly. You may not like the way the evidence points but it needs to be considered if any real understanding is to be had.
quote: You could get a more homogenous population from a mixed group of dogs by relaxing selection and letting them breed freely. Homogeneity is not the point. Fixation of particular traits is - in speciation. But you say you aren't interested in that.
quote: And you still just don't get it. Instead of relying on your own "infallible" opinions at least think about the objections. You are so obviously wrong it isn't funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I agree you could get a homogeneous population by leaving dogs to their own devices, but it still takes selection to get evolution and that means reducing genetic diversity. You aren't getting evolution with addition, that takes selection and selection reduces genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It takes mutation and selection to get evolution. That's basic to the subject, and if you haven't realised that by now that's just too bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mutation is not at all necessary; all it takes is the built-in genetic diversity. But it's the selection that brings about evolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: All this focus on species as opposed to other homogeneous populations is really a red herring. What defines a species is not homogeneity, it's being capable of interbreeding. Homogeneity (or its opposite, diversity) varies from one species to the next, and even from one population of a species to the next.
To get any homogeneous population requires selection which is a loss of genetic diversity. This is true, but what does that have to do with macroevolution versus microevolution?
the processes I'm talking about could take ten times as long as the ideal because of all the interferences, but there is still no getting around the basic fact that to get a new homogeneous population requires the loss of genetic diversity, and that any form of addition only interrupts the process. Everyone agrees that homogeneity requires loss of genetic diversity. That's all that breeding is, and we all agree about breeding. If the discussion were just about breeding then the discussion would be over, but that's not what this is really about for you. Though I guess it makes no difference now if you're truly abandoning your claim that reduced genetic diversity causes speciation. Homogeneity is not an "ideal". It's unhealthy for a species to be homogeneous. Diversity contributes to fitness.
Also you assume a lot about numbers and time that is probably not true. What on earth persuaded you to walk out on yet another ledge? If you really think you've identified errors, be specific. The truth is that what we've been saying about numbers and time are not assumptions but facts, in many cases very obvious and even self-evident facts. The mutation rate for many species is known. For example, it's been noted several times in this thread that human offspring average around 100 mutations. And we know it takes time for mutations to spread throughout a population because they can't spread any faster than the generation rate. That's why it's possible to experimentally breed new species of bacteria (extremely short generation times) but not mammals (comparatively long generation times). And we know larger populations produce more mutations and diversity than small populations. These facts are why the idea of "rapid speciation" post ark in order to get from the number of species that would fit on the ark to the number of species observed in the world today is such nonsense. Generating meaningful numbers of mutations would require large populations, which couldn't be the case since each species was represented by either 2 or 14 individuals when they walked off the ark. And anyway, it takes long time periods for mutations to propagate through large populations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I agree you could get a homogeneous population by leaving dogs to their own devices, but it still takes selection to get evolution and that means reducing genetic diversity. You aren't getting evolution with addition, that takes selection and selection reduces genetic diversity. Evolution includes both mutation and selection, and evolution is definitely not synonymous with reduced genetic diversity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Mutation is not at all necessary; all it takes is the built-in genetic diversity. But it's the selection that brings about evolution. There is no such thing as "built-in genetic diversity". No such thing has ever been observed. And again, evolution includes both mutation and selection. Or paraphrasing Darwin, evolution is descent with change and natural selection. You can't ignore mutation without being wrong. Your insistence on contributing by mere repetition of erroneous declarations that are absent any evidence or argument is making discussion rather one-sided. You seemed to understand earlier today that you couldn't prove your points, only saying that one day you thought you could. Obviously nothing has changed in the few hours that have passed and you still can't prove your points, but you're continuing to post anyway. That day that you think will one day come isn't today, and if you can't make your case today then you shouldn't be posting today. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
dup
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All you do is keep repeating the ToE so I keep repeating my contrary view. You say this or that hasn't been observed but that's just an assertion like everything else you've said.
Believers in the ToE are certainly going to follow the party line you are repeating, and I'm going to keep on asserting what I know is the truth instead. You HAVE to lose genetic diversity with selection and you HAVE to have selection for evolution to occur. We can declare an impasse if you like until something new comes along. You shouldn't be declaring the status quo over and over either since you can't prove it. About built in genetic diversity it's interesting that the mathematical formulas of Population Genetics seem to affirm it. Mendelian genetics affirms it. Of course it's been "observed." The idea that mutations are the source of all variability is pure ToE based assumption. It's an interpretation. The better interpretation is built-in genetics. There is no way DNA could have evolved, and each species has its own identifiable genome which is a clue that each was created and didn't evolve. There's no way mutations could alter it to make a new species. All they do is mess things up for a given species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Evolution off the ark wasn't particularly rapid, it was quite normal, and mutations certainly played no part in it, unless they provided some sort of interference. And I'm not arguing for speciation, I think that idea is a crock. Whatever fits the definition isn't what it is thought to be, it's some kind of crippled population, no doubt brought about by mutations, and unlikely to evolve much beyond its current genetic situation. So "rapid speciation" has nothing to do with what happened after the ark. There should have been a period of population growth followed by migration which would be all that's needed to form all the new species. Interbreeding is irrelevant.
Oh. Loss of genetic diversity means that evolution comes to a halt at the boundary of the Kind. There is no such thing as macroevolution. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Evolution has not come to a halt" you say. Good grief HBD you really aren't getting anything I'm saying. The point is that it must come to a halt after enough selection occurs in a PARTICULAR LINE which is evolving. There are plenty of other populations that aren't evolving and there are plenty of other evolving lines as well, and most of the evolving lines aren't anywhere near the stopping point, it's a projection of what has to happen if the processes continue in the same direction, meaning in the direction of evolution.
I'm not arguing that loss of genetic diversity causes inability to interbreed, HBD, although I used to think that must be the explanation; but of course I am arguing that a species is like breeds and varieties in that they have to have less genetic diversity. OK? Can we please keep that distinction in mind? I would welcome your attempt to prove me wrong which you keep saying you could do, except for the fact that your arguments are too hard to understand. I just don't get what you are saying and that gets frustrating and proves nothing. Turns out your last incomprehensible attempt was to prove something wrong that I'm not claiming, which you seemed to think was my whole argument. That gets very frustrating HBD. "More to the story?" There must be lots of byways and detours, but I have no doubt whatever that what I'm arguing is in principle what happens. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
About built in genetic diversity it's interesting that the mathematical formulas of Population Genetics seem to affirm it. Really? Could you demonstrate how that is? Come on Faith, you don't have a clue as to how to use pop gen formulas, let alone having figured out how they affirm built in genetic diversity.
Mendelian genetics affirms it. What could you possibly mean by this?
each species has its own identifiable genome which is a clue that each was created Ok, now how are you defining "species"... because a minute ago you were insistent that you were NOT talking about species and that species was a red-herring. I thought that modern species rapidly evolved from the limited number of species on the ark. Yet, here you say that every species has its own identifiable genome that was created. What's interesting here is that you feel the need to double down on ignorant statements rather than just admitting you were wrong and need to rethink you argument. 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 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What?
Wrong about what? You were making an issue of speciation. Speciation is not my issue. But of COURSE I believe species are like breeds and varieties in having reduced genetic diversity. What is your problem? I have the impression watching the videos on population genetics that they take for granted the Mendelian formula. They don't mention mutations, they just calculate frequencies based on the usual Punnett square. You'd think they'd mention that mutations are a big factor in calculating frequencies of alleles if they were a big factor, but so far I've only encountered the usual general statements about how mutations are the source of variability, and of course I just sadly shake my head at that. I suppose it doesn't prove much, but it did get my attention. How do I define species? As whatever population is normally called a species. Whether they can interbreed or not isn't important.
I thought that modern species rapidly evolved from the limited number of species on the ark. Yet, here you say that every species has its own identifiable genome that was created. I don't think I could ever have said anything about "rapid" evolution from the ark, because I've only been interested in arguing that greater genetic diversity on the ark would have made possible the whole array of species we see. Rapidity doesn't enter into it, although I do think evolution happens a lot faster in general than is generally believed, and that may be where people get that idea, but that has nothing in particular to do with the time immediately following the ark. Every species having its own genome is a separate subject. That fact strongly suggests separate creation of each species. Otherwise why should there ever be an identifiable species at all? By the created genome I mean the general genome "cat" or "dog." I'd prefer to call species of cats or dogs "subspecies" but since "species" is the usual term I don't. I don't believe I'm wrong and need to rethink anything. I would suppose that's the reason I don't "admit" it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I would welcome your attempt to prove me wrong which you keep saying you could do, except for the fact that your arguments are too hard to understand. I just don't get what you are saying and that gets frustrating and proves nothing. I am arguing some pretty basic population genetic fundamentals. I realize that I write in rather technical, scientific terms... but I try hard to explain the concepts I am referencing. If you really don't get anything I'm saying, you truly have no business arguing about population genetics. If you can't understand the basic concepts I have been discussing, you certainly aren't ready for the literature, which contains the evidence for the points I have made. You ask, "where's the evidence?" But do you really think you are ready for it?
That gets very frustrating HBD. It also frustrates me when someone is so cock-sure they are right but can't follow a basic discussion about the subject. And then blames me for the problem.
The point is that it must come to a halt after enough selection occurs in a PARTICULAR LINE which is evolving. I have agreed and pointed out several times now that this is trivially true. So what? Look, if your whole argument is that in order to get a pure breed, the breeder must select for desirable traits and reduce diversity to preserve those traits and that once genetic diversity has been reduced to a certain point, it cannot be reduced any further so the evolution or development of that line would cease... then I (WE) AGREE. Discussion over. There would be no point in arguing about that. But why are you carrying on and on and on about something so trivial? Because... THAT IS NOT YOUR REAL ARGUMENT! is it? You REAL argument is that what happens in breeding programs can be extrapolated to evolution in general and therefore the ToE is defeated. That's your real argument, isn't it? Yet you keep moving the goal posts around and claiming that no one understands your argument and everything used to refute your argument (that the ToE is defeated) is irrelevant. That's the real meat and potatoes of this discussion, isn't it? 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 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I would welcome your attempt to prove me wrong which you keep saying you could do, except for the fact that your arguments are too hard to understand. I just don't get what you are saying and that gets frustrating and proves nothing. I am arguing some pretty basic population genetic fundamentals. I realize that I write in rather technical, scientific terms... but I try hard to explain the concepts I am referencing. If you really don't get anything I'm saying, you truly have no business arguing about population genetics. I argue about what I understand and I don't go beyond that. If you can't address MY argument in a way that's understandable YOU are the one who has no business in this argument. There's plenty of scope for addressing any point I've made, you have no need to throw a whole technical discussion at me.
If you can't understand the basic concepts I have been discussing, you certainly aren't ready for the literature, which contains the evidence for the points I have made. You obviously have no idea what is required in a discussion with someone who is arguing from a very limited area of knowledge. If you really have evidence it has to be possible to make it intelligible in my context. If you can't that's your failing, not mine, and you have no business here at all.
You ask, "where's the evidence?" But do you really think you are ready for it? I already said your arguments are incomprehensible so obviously not. Take a hike.
That gets very frustrating HBD. It also frustrates me when someone is so cock-sure they are right but can't follow a basic discussion about the subject. And then blames me for the problem. ;/qs The point is that it must come to a halt after enough selection occurs in a PARTICULAR LINE which is evolving. I have agreed and pointed out several times now that this is trivially true. So what? I WAS ANSWERING YOUR BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT EVOLUTION ITSELF COMING TO A HALT. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT. LEARN TO READ. TAKE A REMEDIAL ENGLISH COURSE OR SOMETHING. You say it's trivial, I say it proves my claim about how evolution has to happen. Sorry, your refrain about triviality is just a distraction.
Look, if your whole argument is that in order to get a pure breed, the breeder must select for desirable traits and reduce diversity to preserve those traits and that once genetic diversity has been reduced to a certain point, it cannot be reduced any further so the evolution or development of that line would cease... then I (WE) AGREE. Discussion over. There would be no point in arguing about that. But why are you carrying on and on and on about something so trivial? Because... THAT IS NOT YOUR REAL ARGUMENT! is it? You REAL argument is that what happens in breeding programs can be extrapolated to evolution in general and therefore the ToE is defeated. That's your real argument, isn't it? OF COURSE IT'S MY ARGUMENT! AND I'VE SAID SO A MILLION TIMES. YOU THINK I'M DENYING IT? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT IDEA? OF COURSE IT'S THE POINT, IT'S NOT HIDDEN, IT'S NOT OBSCURE, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. SHEESH.
Yet you keep moving the goal posts around and claiming that no one understands your argument and everything used to refute your argument (that the ToE is defeated) is irrelevant. That's the real meat and potatoes of this discussion, isn't it? You keep calling it trivial, you keep dismissing it, so I have to keep repeating it; and you haven't given any idea why it's wrong you just keep saying it's wrong. I've pointed out SPECIFIC things you've gotten wrong about what I'm saying, REALLY GOTTEN WRONG. Are you denying those SPECIFIC things? I don't know why there is this problem but I haven't changed anything in my argument, so it has to be some way you aren't getting something. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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